In South Carolina, the Uniform Trust Code (UTC), as adopted and modified by state law, governs the interpretation and administration of trusts. Specifically, SC Code Ann. § 62-7-406 addresses the effect of a trust provision that directs the trustee to pay income or principal to a beneficiary in the trustee’s discretion. This type of provision creates a discretionary trust. When a creditor seeks to reach the interest of a beneficiary in a discretionary trust, South Carolina law generally protects the beneficiary’s interest from the creditor’s claims unless the trustee has made a distribution or the beneficiary has a present right to demand a distribution. However, the statute does not permit a creditor to compel a distribution from a discretionary trust. The key is that the trustee’s discretion must be genuine and not subject to the beneficiary’s control. In this scenario, the trustee’s sole discretion to distribute income or principal means the beneficiary cannot compel a distribution, and therefore, the creditor, such as a judgment creditor, cannot force the trustee to make a distribution to satisfy the debt. The creditor’s remedy would be to pursue any distributions that the trustee *actually* makes to the beneficiary, or to seek a court order to attach future discretionary distributions, but not to compel the initial distribution itself. Therefore, the creditor cannot compel the trustee to distribute funds to satisfy the judgment.

In South Carolina, the concept of a “pretermitted heir” refers to a child or descendant of the testator who is born or adopted after the execution of a will and who is not provided for in the will. South Carolina Code Section 56-3-801 addresses the rights of such heirs. Generally, a pretermitted heir is entitled to the same share of the testator’s estate as if the testator had died intestate (without a will), unless certain exceptions apply. These exceptions include situations where the omission was intentional and shown by extrinsic evidence, or where the testator had other children or descendants living at the time of the will’s execution and provided for them in the will. The statute aims to prevent accidental disinheritance. In this scenario, the testator executed a will and subsequently had a child. This child was not mentioned in the will. Therefore, the child qualifies as a pretermitted heir under South Carolina law and is entitled to a share of the estate as if the testator died intestate, unless one of the statutory exceptions can be proven. The relevant intestacy share for a child in South Carolina depends on whether there is a surviving spouse. If there is a surviving spouse, the child would typically inherit the entire estate after the spouse’s elective share is satisfied. If there is no surviving spouse, the child inherits the entire estate. Since the question does not provide information about a surviving spouse or any intentional omission, the default rule applies.

The South Carolina Uniform Trust Code, specifically South Carolina Code Ann. § 62-7-406, addresses the issue of a trustee’s duty to keep beneficiaries informed. This duty is multifaceted and includes providing beneficiaries with the terms of the trust, information about the trust property, and a copy of the trust’s financial report annually. The statute clarifies that the trustee must provide this information to the settlor during the settlor’s lifetime if the settlor is not also a trustee. After the settlor’s death, this duty extends to the beneficiaries. The statute also specifies what constitutes a “beneficiary” for the purposes of receiving information, generally including current beneficiaries and permissible appointees of a presently exercisable general power of appointment. Crucially, the duty to inform is not absolute and can be modified or waived by the trust instrument, provided such modification does not violate public policy or the trustee’s duty of good faith. The question hinges on the trustee’s obligation to provide a copy of the trust instrument itself to a beneficiary, which is explicitly mandated by § 62-7-406(a)(1) unless the trust instrument states otherwise. The scenario describes a situation where the trust instrument does not contain any provisions waiving this disclosure. Therefore, the trustee is legally obligated to provide a copy of the trust instrument to the beneficiary.

In South Carolina, a will can be revoked by a subsequent written instrument that is executed with the same formalities as a will, or by physical act of destruction. The relevant statute is South Carolina Code Section 11-3-201, which outlines the methods of revocation. A physical act of revocation requires intent to revoke and the actual performance of a destructive act upon the will. Examples of physical acts include burning, tearing, canceling, obliterating, or destroying the will. The intent must be present at the time of the physical act. If a testator makes a physical alteration to their will, such as crossing out a specific bequest with the intent to revoke only that bequest, this constitutes a partial revocation. South Carolina law recognizes partial revocation by physical act. The statute requires that the physical act be done with the intent to revoke. If the testator intended to revoke the entire will by burning it, but only partially burned it, the intent to revoke the entire will is key. However, if the testator only intended to revoke a specific provision and performed a physical act on that provision, only that provision is revoked. In this scenario, the testator’s stated intent was to revoke the entire will. The act of burning, even if incomplete, coupled with the clear intent to revoke the whole document, is sufficient for revocation of the entire will under South Carolina law. The remaining portions of the will are therefore not given effect.

South Carolina law, specifically the South Carolina Probate Code, addresses the validity of holographic wills. A holographic will is one that is written entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed by the testator. Crucially, South Carolina Code Section 62-2-503 states that a will that does not comply with Section 62-2-502 (which generally requires a will to be in writing, signed by the testator, and attested by two witnesses) is still valid as a holographic will if the signature and the material provisions of the will are in the handwriting of the testator. The key here is that the entire will, including the dispositive provisions and the testator’s signature, must be in the testator’s own handwriting. If any material part of the will, such as a significant bequest or the appointment of an executor, is not in the testator’s handwriting, it fails as a holographic will. In this scenario, the beneficiary designation for the antique clock is typed, not handwritten by the testator. Therefore, that specific provision would be invalid. However, the remainder of the will, being entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed by the testator, would be considered a valid holographic will, but only to the extent of its handwritten provisions. The typed beneficiary designation for the clock would be disregarded, and that asset would likely pass according to the residuary clause of the valid handwritten portion of the will, or via intestacy if there is no residuary clause or if it is also invalid. The question asks about the validity of the *entire* will as a holographic will. Since a material provision is typed, the entire document does not qualify as a holographic will.

The scenario involves a will that creates a testamentary trust for the benefit of Elara, with the remainder to her children upon her death. The key legal issue is the proper interpretation of the trust’s termination and distribution provisions. In South Carolina, a testamentary trust is established by a will. When a trust instrument specifies a condition for termination, such as the death of a named beneficiary, the trust generally terminates upon the occurrence of that event. The will states the trust terminates upon Elara’s death. At that point, the trust assets are to be distributed to her children. The concept of “per stirpes” distribution is relevant here. Per stirpes means that a share that would have gone to a deceased beneficiary is instead divided equally among their descendants. In this case, if Elara had a child who predeceased her but left descendants, those descendants would collectively receive the share that their deceased parent would have received. The will explicitly directs distribution to “her children, per stirpes.” This means that if a child of Elara dies before her, that deceased child’s share will pass to their issue. If Elara has three children, and one child, Liam, predeceases Elara but has two children of his own, Liam’s share will be divided equally between his two children. The other two children of Elara who survive her will each receive one-third of the trust corpus. Therefore, Elara’s grandchildren, who are Liam’s children, will receive Liam’s one-third share, meaning each grandchild receives one-sixth of the total trust corpus. The question asks about the distribution to Elara’s grandchildren, who are Liam’s issue. Liam’s one-third share is to be divided among his descendants per stirpes. Since Liam has two children, his share is divided equally between them. Thus, each of Liam’s children receives half of Liam’s one-third share, which equates to one-sixth of the total trust corpus.

In South Carolina, the concept of “pretermitted heir” refers to a child born or adopted after the execution of a testator’s will who is not provided for in that will. South Carolina Code Section 62-2-302 addresses pretermitted heirs. This statute generally presumes that a testator intends to provide for children born or adopted after the will’s execution, unless the will explicitly states a contrary intention or provides for the child in some other way. If a testator has no other living children at the time the will is executed, and then has a child after the will is executed, that after-born child is entitled to the same share of the testator’s estate as if the testator had died intestate, unless it appears from the will that the omission was intentional. If the testator has other children living at the time the will is executed, and then has an after-born child, the after-born child is entitled to a share equal to that of the testator’s other children, unless the will provides for the after-born child or indicates an intention to disinherit. The key is whether the omission was intentional or a mere oversight. The statute aims to prevent accidental disinheritance of children who were not in existence or known to the testator at the time the will was drafted. Therefore, for a pretermitted heir to be excluded from inheriting, the will must clearly and unequivocally demonstrate an intent to disinherit that specific class of after-born children, or provide for them in a manner that satisfies the statutory requirements. Simply leaving the bulk of the estate to existing children without mentioning after-born ones does not automatically disinherit the latter.

In South Carolina, the doctrine of equitable conversion dictates that when a contract for the sale of real property becomes binding, the vendor’s interest in the property is converted into personal property (the right to receive the purchase price), and the vendee’s interest is converted into real property (the right to acquire the land). This conversion occurs at the moment the contract is executed, assuming it is specifically enforceable. Therefore, if the vendor dies after a binding contract for sale but before closing, the vendor’s estate is entitled to the purchase money, and the heir who inherits the vendor’s real property takes it subject to the contract. Conversely, if the vendee dies after the contract is binding but before closing, the vendee’s heir who inherits the real property takes it subject to the obligation to pay the purchase price, and the purchase money becomes part of the vendee’s personal estate. This principle is crucial in determining the proper distribution of assets and liabilities when a party to a real estate contract dies before the transaction is finalized. The equitable conversion shifts the nature of the interest from real to personal property, or vice versa, for the purposes of inheritance and estate administration. This doctrine is a cornerstone of property law, particularly in how it impacts the devolution of property interests under a binding contract.

In South Carolina, the concept of a “pretermitted heir” is crucial when a will is executed before the birth or adoption of a child, and that child is not provided for in the will. South Carolina Code Section 56-3-301 addresses this scenario. This statute presumes that the omission was unintentional, and therefore, the pretermitted child is entitled to receive a share of the estate. The share is typically equivalent to what the child would have received if the testator had died intestate, meaning without a will. This share is generally taken from the portions of the estate that would have passed to the beneficiaries under the will, not from the residuary estate unless specifically directed or if the entire estate passes through the residuary clause. The statute aims to prevent accidental disinheritance of after-born or after-adopted children. It is important to note that this presumption can be overcome if the will clearly indicates an intention to disinherit the child or if the child was provided for outside the will in a manner that clearly demonstrates intent. The calculation of the pretermitted heir’s share involves determining the intestate share and then allocating it proportionally from the specific bequests and devises in the will.

In South Carolina, the concept of a “pretermitted heir” refers to a child or other descendant who is born or adopted after the execution of a will, and who is not provided for in the will or otherwise mentioned. South Carolina Code Section 99-3-102 governs pretermitted heirs. This statute generally presumes that the testator intended to provide for such after-born or adopted descendants. If a testator has no other children living when the will is executed, and the will provides for the testator’s spouse, then a pretermitted child receives an intestate share of the estate. If the testator has other children living when the will is executed, and the will provides for the testator’s spouse, then a pretermitted child receives a share equal to that of the testator’s other children. However, if the will explicitly states that it is intended to disinherit any after-born or adopted descendants, or if the testator provided for such descendants by transfers outside the will that are intended to be in lieu of a testamentary provision, then the pretermitted heir statute does not apply. In this scenario, the testator executed their will in 2018, providing for their spouse and two existing children. Subsequently, in 2020, a third child was born. The will makes no mention of after-born children, nor does it contain any language of disinheritance for future offspring. Therefore, the after-born child is considered a pretermitted heir. Under South Carolina law, when a testator has other children living at the time of the will’s execution, a pretermitted child is entitled to a share of the estate equal to that received by the testator’s other children. The estate is valued at $600,000. The will provides for the spouse and the two existing children. Assuming the will directs the residue of the estate to be divided equally among the spouse and the two existing children, each would receive $200,000 ($600,000 / 3). To provide equally for the pretermitted child, the estate must be re-apportioned as if there were three children. Thus, the estate would be divided into four equal shares. Each of the original beneficiaries (spouse and two children) would have their share reduced from $200,000 to $150,000 ($600,000 / 4). The after-born child would then receive $150,000. The total distribution would be $150,000 (spouse) + $150,000 (child 1) + $150,000 (child 2) + $150,000 (child 3) = $600,000. The question asks for the amount the after-born child receives.

In South Carolina, the Uniform Trust Code (SC Code Ann. § 62-7-101 et seq.) governs the creation and administration of trusts. A crucial aspect of trust administration involves the trustee’s duties, particularly the duty of loyalty and the duty to administer the trust solely in the beneficiaries’ interest. When a trustee holds a personal interest that conflicts with the beneficiaries’ interests, this duty is tested. South Carolina law, specifically § 62-7-802, addresses the trustee’s ability to delegate certain functions. However, delegation does not absolve the trustee of responsibility for the delegated task’s proper execution. The trustee must exercise reasonable care, skill, and caution in selecting an agent and in monitoring the agent’s actions. If a trustee improperly delegates a duty or fails to adequately supervise a delegated task, leading to a loss for the trust, the trustee can be held personally liable for that loss. This liability stems from the breach of the duty of care and loyalty. The trustee’s personal financial interest in the success of the delegated venture does not excuse a failure to act prudently and solely for the benefit of the trust beneficiaries. The trustee cannot use their own financial gain as a justification for imprudent actions that harm the trust.

In South Carolina, a will contest based on undue influence requires demonstrating that the testator’s free will was overcome by the pressure or manipulation of another person. The burden of proof typically rests with the contestant. Key elements to establish undue influence include showing the testator was susceptible to influence, the influencer had an opportunity to exert influence, the influencer had a disposition to exert influence, and the resulting disposition of the will appears to be the product of that influence. South Carolina law does not require a mathematical calculation for this determination; rather, it involves an analysis of the facts and circumstances surrounding the will’s execution. The presence of a confidential relationship, coupled with suspicious circumstances such as a substantial benefit to the influencer or the testator’s weakened mental or physical state, can create a presumption of undue influence, shifting the burden to the proponent of the will to prove its validity. This presumption is rebuttable. The ultimate question is whether the testator’s own intent, rather than the influencer’s will, is reflected in the document.

In South Carolina, a will must be signed by the testator and by two witnesses. The witnesses must sign in the presence of the testator. This requirement is fundamental to the validity of a will under South Carolina law, specifically South Carolina Code Section 62-2-502. The statute outlines the formalities for execution. The concept of “presence” for witnessing is generally interpreted as the testator being able to see the witnesses sign, or being able to see them sign if they had chosen to look. The intent is to ensure that the testator is aware of the act of signing by the witnesses and to prevent fraud or undue influence. If a witness signs in a separate room, and the testator is not present in that room and cannot see the signing, the witness’s signature would likely be invalid, rendering the will potentially invalid unless other provisions like a self-proving affidavit or holographic will exception (which does not apply here as it is not a holographic will) are applicable. The scenario describes the witnesses signing in a separate room, without the testator being able to see them, thus failing the statutory requirement of signing in the testator’s presence. Therefore, the will is not properly executed according to South Carolina law.

South Carolina law, specifically the South Carolina Uniform Trust Code (SC UTC), governs the administration and modification of trusts. A key principle is that a trust is irrevocable unless the terms of the trust expressly state that it is revocable by the settlor or a trustee. The SC UTC, in Section 56-1-401, clarifies that the terms of a trust are presumed irrevocable unless stated otherwise. Therefore, if Elara’s trust instrument did not contain any provisions for revocation or amendment, it is considered irrevocable by default. Modifications to an irrevocable trust in South Carolina generally require either the consent of all beneficiaries and the settlor (if living and competent), or a court order, or specific provisions within the trust allowing for modification under certain circumstances, such as decanting or non-judicial settlement agreements under specific statutory conditions. Without any of these conditions being met, Elara cannot unilaterally alter the terms of her trust. The question hinges on the default rule for irrevocability in South Carolina.

In South Carolina, a testator can revoke a will by performing a physical act of destruction with the intent to revoke. This act must be done by the testator or by someone in the testator’s presence and by their direction. The statute governing revocation by physical act is South Carolina Code Ann. § 62-2-507. This section specifies that a will, or any part thereof, may be revoked by burning, tearing, canceling, obliterating, or destroying it with the intent and purpose of revocation. The key elements are the physical act and the accompanying intent. If a testator tears a will in half with the intent to revoke it, this constitutes a valid revocation under South Carolina law, provided the act is completed. The question presents a scenario where Elara tears her will in half. The explanation of the scenario clearly states that she did this with the express intent to revoke the entire document. Therefore, the physical act of tearing, coupled with the clear intent to revoke, satisfies the requirements for revocation by physical act in South Carolina. The fact that the will is torn in half is sufficient; the statute does not require complete destruction, but rather an act that demonstrates intent to revoke. The remaining portion of the will, even if not entirely destroyed, is considered revoked because the testator’s intent was to revoke the entire will through the physical act.

South Carolina law, specifically the South Carolina Uniform Trust Code, governs the modification and termination of trusts. A trust can be terminated if it is irrevocable and all beneficiaries consent to the termination, provided the trustee does not object and the continuation of the trust is not necessary to achieve any material purpose. Alternatively, a trust can be terminated if the grantor is the sole beneficiary and has the capacity to terminate it. In this scenario, the trust is irrevocable, and the sole beneficiary, Elara Vance, is also the grantor. Elara has unequivocally expressed her desire to terminate the trust. Since Elara is both the grantor and the sole beneficiary of an irrevocable trust, and there is no indication that continuing the trust is necessary to achieve any material purpose, she possesses the unilateral power to terminate it under South Carolina law. The trustee’s consent is not required in this specific instance where the grantor is also the sole beneficiary.

In South Carolina, a will must be signed by the testator and by two witnesses. The witnesses must sign in the presence of the testator. If a will is self-proved, it requires an affidavit by the testator and witnesses, sworn to before a notary public. This affidavit attests that the testator declared the instrument to be their will, signed it willingly, and that each witness signed in the testator’s presence and in the presence of each other. A will that is not self-proved can still be admitted to probate, but it requires witness testimony or other proof to establish its validity. The scenario describes a will signed by the testator and two witnesses, but it lacks the self-proving affidavit. Therefore, to be admitted to probate, the will would require the testimony of at least one of the attesting witnesses, or other satisfactory proof of execution, to overcome the presumption of invalidity that might arise from the absence of the affidavit. The question tests the understanding of the basic execution requirements versus the self-proving affidavit provisions in South Carolina law. The correct answer focuses on the necessary proof for a non-self-proved will.

In South Carolina, a will that is not properly executed according to statutory requirements is generally considered invalid. The South Carolina Code of Laws, specifically Title 62, Article II, Section 62-2-502, outlines the formalities for executing a will. These include that the will must be in writing, signed by the testator or by another person in the testator’s presence and by the testator’s direction, and attested to by at least two witnesses who sign the will in the presence of the testator. A holographic will, which is a will written entirely in the testator’s handwriting, is not recognized as valid in South Carolina unless it meets these formal execution requirements. Therefore, if a will is entirely in the testator’s handwriting but lacks the attestation of two witnesses, it fails to comply with the statutory formalities for a valid will in South Carolina. The absence of witness signatures is a fatal flaw to the will’s validity under South Carolina law.

In South Carolina, a will generally requires the testator’s signature and the signatures of two witnesses. However, South Carolina law recognizes holographic wills, which are entirely in the testator’s handwriting, and do not require witnesses. This is codified in South Carolina Code Section 62-2-503. The key element for a holographic will is that the entire document, including the testamentary intent, must be in the testator’s own handwriting. If any part of the will is not in the testator’s handwriting, or if it is typed or printed even if signed by the testator, it must comply with the standard witnessing requirements. Therefore, a will that is entirely handwritten by the testator, expressing their testamentary wishes, is valid in South Carolina without witness attestation. The question specifically states the will is entirely in the testator’s handwriting.

The South Carolina Probate Code, specifically Section 62-2-507, addresses the issue of revocation of a will by a subsequent writing. This section states that a will may be revoked by a subsequent will or other writing that revokes the prior will. For such a subsequent writing to be effective, it must be executed in the same manner as a will. This means it must be signed by the testator and attested to by at least two credible witnesses in the testator’s presence. The scenario describes a codicil, which is a supplement or addition to an existing will. A codicil, by its nature, is intended to modify or revoke parts of a prior will. Therefore, the effectiveness of the codicil in revoking the specific devise of the beachfront property hinges on its proper execution. Since the codicil was signed by the testator and attested by two witnesses, it meets the statutory requirements for a valid testamentary instrument in South Carolina, including one that revokes a prior devise. The intent to revoke is clearly demonstrated by the language within the codicil itself, which explicitly states it revokes the prior devise of the beachfront property. Therefore, the codicil is effective in revoking the devise.

The South Carolina Probate Code, specifically concerning the validity of a will, requires certain formalities. A holographic will, which is entirely in the testator’s handwriting, is generally not recognized in South Carolina unless it also meets the statutory requirements for a formal will, which include being signed by the testator and attested to by at least two witnesses in the testator’s presence. The scenario describes a will that is entirely handwritten by the testator, Ms. Anya Sharma, but it lacks any attestation by witnesses. Therefore, it fails to meet the formal requirements for a valid will in South Carolina. The concept of testamentary intent is present, as Ms. Sharma clearly intended the document to be her will. However, the absence of proper execution, specifically the lack of witness attestation, renders the document invalid as a formal will. South Carolina Code Section 56-3-6104 addresses the validity of wills and the requirements for attestation. Since the document was not signed by two competent witnesses, it cannot be admitted to probate as a formal will. A will must be in writing, signed by the testator, and attested to by at least two witnesses. While the handwritten nature is a characteristic of a holographic will, South Carolina does not recognize holographic wills per se unless they comply with the formal execution requirements.

In South Carolina, the concept of a “pretermitted heir” arises when a testator fails to provide for a child born or adopted after the execution of their will. South Carolina Code Section 10-3-102 outlines the rights of such heirs. Generally, a pretermitted heir is entitled to the same share of the testator’s estate as if the testator had died intestate, unless it appears from the will that the omission was intentional and not occasioned by mistake or accident. The statute does not require a specific declaration that the child was intentionally omitted, but the intent must be evident from the will’s provisions. For instance, a general statement in the will disinheriting all heirs not specifically mentioned, or a provision leaving the entire estate to others with clear language indicating no other beneficiaries were intended, could satisfy this requirement. However, a mere oversight or a belief that the child was already provided for outside the will would not typically suffice. The determination hinges on the testator’s intent as expressed within the four corners of the will.

The scenario involves a testator, Elara Vance, who executed a will in South Carolina. Her will contains a specific bequest of a unique antique vase to her nephew, Silas. Subsequently, Elara sells this exact vase to a collector in Charleston before her death. South Carolina law, specifically regarding ademption by satisfaction and ademption by extinction, governs the effect of this sale on the bequest. Ademption by extinction occurs when the subject matter of a specific bequest is destroyed, lost, or disposed of by the testator during their lifetime. In such cases, the bequest fails entirely, and the beneficiary receives nothing unless the will provides otherwise, or the testator’s intent suggests a different outcome. Elara’s sale of the vase constitutes an act of disposition of the specific item. Therefore, the specific bequest of the vase to Silas is adeemed by extinction. The question is about the impact of this sale on the specific bequest. Since the subject matter of the specific bequest was sold by the testator, the bequest is extinguished. This means Silas is not entitled to the vase or its value. The will does not contain any provisions that would substitute the bequest or indicate Elara’s intent to have Silas receive equivalent value. The disposition of the vase by Elara directly removes the object of the specific gift from her estate.

The scenario involves a testamentary trust established in South Carolina that provides for the income beneficiary, Elara, and then the remainder beneficiaries, her children. The trust instrument specifies that the trustee has discretion to invade the principal for Elara’s “health, education, maintenance, and support” (HEMS). Elara requests funds for a substantial international cruise, arguing it is essential for her “maintenance” due to its perceived educational and restorative benefits. The trustee must evaluate this request against the HEMS standard. The HEMS standard is an objective, ascertainable standard, meaning the trustee’s discretion is limited by what is objectively necessary for Elara’s health, education, maintenance, and support, rather than the trustee’s subjective preference. A luxury cruise, while potentially beneficial for well-being, is generally not considered an essential element of “maintenance” in the context of an HEMS standard unless it can be objectively demonstrated that it is necessary for Elara’s health or to prevent her from falling below a certain standard of living that she has become accustomed to and is essential for her well-being. In South Carolina, as in most jurisdictions, the interpretation of such a standard focuses on necessity and not mere desirability or enhancement of lifestyle. If the cruise is purely for leisure and not demonstrably essential for Elara’s continued health or to maintain a standard of living that is objectively necessary for her support, the trustee would likely be justified in denying the request. The trustee’s fiduciary duty requires them to act prudently and in accordance with the trust’s terms and applicable South Carolina law, which interprets HEMS as a restrictive standard. Therefore, the trustee’s denial of the request based on the cruise not fitting the HEMS standard is a proper exercise of their fiduciary duty.

In South Carolina, the concept of a “pretermitted heir” refers to a child or descendant of the testator who is born or adopted after the execution of the testator’s will. South Carolina Code Section 62-2-302 addresses the rights of pretermitted heirs. Generally, if a testator fails to provide for a child born or adopted after the execution of their will, that child is entitled to receive a share of the testator’s estate. This share is typically equivalent to what the child would have received if the testator had died intestate (without a will), meaning they would inherit a portion of the estate as if no will existed. This protection aims to prevent unintentional disinheritance of after-born or adopted children. However, this right is not absolute. The statute provides exceptions. If it appears from the will itself that the omission of the child was intentional, or if the testator made other provisions for the child outside of the will that were intended to be in lieu of a testamentary provision, the pretermitted heir may not be entitled to a share. The question presents a scenario where a will was executed before the testator’s second child was born. The will makes no mention of any future children. Therefore, the after-born child is a pretermitted heir under South Carolina law and is entitled to a share of the estate. The calculation of this share is based on the intestate succession laws of South Carolina. If the surviving spouse is also alive, the intestate share for a child depends on whether the spouse inherits the entire estate or a portion. Assuming the testator has a spouse and one child when the will was executed, and then has a second child, the estate would be divided. However, the question focuses on the entitlement of the after-born child. The statute essentially treats the pretermitted heir as if they were a beneficiary under an intestacy scenario. If the testator leaves a surviving spouse and two children, and dies intestate, the spouse typically receives one-third of the estate, and the two children share the remaining two-thirds equally, meaning each child receives one-third of the total estate. Therefore, the after-born child would receive one-third of the estate.

The South Carolina Uniform Trust Code, specifically concerning the revocation of a revocable trust, provides that a settlor who has capacity may revoke or amend a revocable trust by: (1) a writing delivered to the trustee; (2) by a will or a codicil that expresses an intent to revoke or amend the trust and is executed in the manner required for a will; or (3) by any other method that sufficiently expresses an intent to revoke or amend the trust and is delivered to the trustee. In this scenario, Mr. Abernathy’s oral declaration to his neighbor, while indicative of his intent, does not satisfy the statutory requirements for revocation or amendment in South Carolina. The trust instrument likely specified the method of revocation, which typically involves a writing. Even if it did not, South Carolina law requires a clear expression of intent delivered to the trustee. An oral statement to a third party, even a neighbor, does not constitute delivery to the trustee and lacks the formality typically required for such significant legal actions. Therefore, the trust remains unrevoked and in full force and effect. The key concept here is the proper execution of trust amendments or revocations, which in South Carolina, as in many jurisdictions, requires adherence to specific statutory formalities to ensure clarity and prevent fraud or undue influence. The Uniform Trust Code aims to provide a clear framework for trust administration, and this includes well-defined procedures for modifying or terminating trusts.

The South Carolina Probate Code, specifically concerning the elective share of a surviving spouse, is governed by S.C. Code Ann. § 62-2-201 et seq. The elective share is a statutory right that protects a surviving spouse from being disinherited by a will. It is calculated as a fraction of the augmented estate. The augmented estate, as defined in S.C. Code Ann. § 62-2-202, includes the decedent’s net probate estate, plus certain other property interests that the decedent transferred during their lifetime or retained an interest in, as well as one-half of the value of property owned jointly by the decedent and others with right of survivorship, and certain amounts received by the surviving spouse from the decedent’s estate. In this scenario, the augmented estate calculation begins with the decedent’s probate estate, which is \$800,000. We then add the value of the revocable trust, \$500,000, as per S.C. Code Ann. § 62-2-202(a)(2)(i), because the decedent retained the power to revoke it. The jointly owned property with the sister, valued at \$200,000, is not included in the augmented estate calculation for the surviving spouse’s elective share because it was not jointly owned with the surviving spouse and the decedent did not retain any beneficial interest in it. Similarly, the \$100,000 transferred to the nephew outright during the decedent’s lifetime, without retention of any interest or control, is not part of the augmented estate. Therefore, the total augmented estate is \$800,000 (probate estate) + \$500,000 (revocable trust) = \$1,300,000. The elective share for a surviving spouse in South Carolina is one-third of the augmented estate, as provided by S.C. Code Ann. § 62-2-201(a). Thus, the elective share amount is \(\frac{1}{3} \times \$1,300,000\). Calculation: \( \frac{1}{3} \times \$1,300,000 = \$433,333.33 \) The surviving spouse is entitled to an elective share of \$433,333.33 from the augmented estate.

The scenario involves a testamentary trust established under a will in South Carolina. The primary beneficiary, Elara, is to receive income from the trust for her life, with the remainder to her children upon her death. The trust instrument specifies that the trustee has the discretion to invade the principal for Elara’s “health, education, and support.” South Carolina law, specifically the South Carolina Uniform Trust Code (SC UTC), governs the interpretation and administration of such trusts. The question probes the nature of the trustee’s discretion. When a trustee has discretion to invade the principal for specific purposes like health, education, and support, this is generally considered a “support trust” or a trust with a “mandatory standard.” The trustee’s discretion is not absolute but is limited by an ascertainable standard. This means the trustee must act reasonably and in good faith, considering Elara’s accustomed standard of living and her needs related to health, education, and support. The trustee cannot distribute principal for purposes outside these specified categories or arbitrarily withhold distributions if Elara’s needs align with the stated standard. Therefore, the trustee’s discretion is constrained by the objective standard set forth in the trust document. The core concept being tested is the distinction between discretionary trusts with unlimited discretion and those with discretion limited by an ascertainable standard, and how this limitation impacts the trustee’s fiduciary duties and the beneficiary’s rights. The South Carolina Uniform Trust Code provides guidance on the interpretation of such standards, emphasizing the settlor’s intent.

The South Carolina Uniform Trust Code, specifically Section 35-2-406, addresses the termination or modification of a trust. This section allows a trustee to proceed with termination or modification if, within a reasonable time after the trustee sends notice of the proposed action to the qualified beneficiaries, no qualified beneficiary objects to the proposed action. The notice must be sent to all qualified beneficiaries and the settlor, if the settlor is not deceased and is not the trustee. A qualified beneficiary is defined as a beneficiary who, on the date the beneficiary’s qualification is determined, is a distributee or a permissible distributee of trust income or principal. A permissible distributee includes a beneficiary for whom the trustee has discretion to make distributions. In this scenario, the trustee sent notice to all known qualified beneficiaries, including those with contingent interests who are permissible distributees of principal in the trustee’s discretion. No qualified beneficiary objected within the specified timeframe. Therefore, the trustee is authorized to proceed with the modification as proposed.

In South Carolina, a will must be signed by the testator and by two witnesses. The witnesses must sign in the presence of the testator. This requirement ensures that the testator is aware of the signing and that the document reflects their true intent. If a will is not properly attested, it may be considered invalid. However, South Carolina law provides for a “harmless error” rule, codified in S.C. Code Ann. § 62-2-503, which allows a court to uphold a will that does not strictly comply with the signing and witnessing requirements if the proponent of the will establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the testator intended the document to be their will. This statute is designed to prevent technical defects from thwarting the testator’s testamentary intent. The question presents a scenario where a testator signs a document intended as their will, and one witness signs in the testator’s presence, but the second witness signs later, outside the testator’s presence, due to a misunderstanding of the attestation procedure. The crucial element is whether the testator’s intent can be proven despite the procedural flaw. Under the harmless error rule, the focus shifts from strict compliance to the testator’s intent. If the proponent can demonstrate through clear and convincing evidence that the testator intended the document to be their will, the will can be admitted to probate. The fact that the second witness signed at a later time and outside the testator’s presence is a defect that the harmless error rule can cure if the requisite intent is proven. Therefore, the will is not automatically invalid; its validity hinges on the successful application of the harmless error rule.