SC Supreme Court Ends Historic Battle Over James Brown Estate
On Wednesday, May 8, the South Carolina Supreme Court ended a historic battle in the six-year war over the multi-million dollar estate of music legend James Brown.
Four petitions had been filed following the Court’s February 27 decision to overturn a 2008 settlement deal by former Attorney General (AG) Henry McMaster. On Wednesday the Court denied all petitions and issued a revised opinion, sending the case back to Aiken County for further proceedings.
The settlement deal had been appealed to the Supreme Court by former trustees, Bob Buchanan of Aiken and Adele Pope of Newberry, who replaced Brown’s original trustees after they resigned in 2007.
On Friday, Pope said, “The May 8 decision of our Supreme Court ends the 6-year quest by James Brown’s original trustees, Brown’s companion and others—aided by 90 lawyers—to destroy James Brown’s dream of leaving his $100 million music empire to the James Brown ‘I Feel Good’ Trust, to be used solely for the education of needy and deserving students in Georgia and South Carolina.”
In his estate plan, Brown left his worldwide music empire to an education charity for needy students in South Carolina and Georgia. Brown left personal and household effects to six children named in the will. For certain grandchildren, he set up a family education fund of up to $2 million. To companion Tomirae Hynie, he left nothing.
Some of the children contested the will, asking for a greater share than Brown left to them, as did Hynie, who claimed to be Brown’s wife even though she was married to another man when she and Brown exchanged vows in 2001.
Before the second set of trustees could defend against the will contests, former AG McMaster intervened and rewrote Brown’s estate plan. The McMaster settlement deal took over half of Brown’s music empire from the charity and gave to “persons who had been specifically excluded” from inheriting it.
The McMaster deal was, wrote Supreme Court Chief Justice Jean Toal, “the government’s unprecedented encroachment into estate administration…” Under the McMaster deal, the AG gave himself the right to appoint the estate’s sole trustee, who serves “at his pleasure.”
The court rejected the petition of AG Alan Wilson to reinstate the settlement, which the court called unjust and unreasonable. The court further rejected the petition of Columbia C.P.A. Russell Bauknight to remain as trustee of the Brown estate—and voided his appointment.
The opinion states: “In light of our decision invalidating the compromise agreement, we likewise void Bauknight’s appointment, which was made in conjunction with the settlement agreement, and under which he was to serve at the pleasure of the AG.”
The court did, however, leave the door open for Bauknight to apply for the position when the case is returned to the circuit court in Aiken.
The circuit court was directed by the Supreme Court to appoint fiduciaries who will oversee matters “in accordance with the provisions of Brown’s estate and trust documents.” Presumably, that means trustees who will carry out James Brown’s estate plan as written.
Over Bauknight’s four-year service, he has paid off a multi-million dollar debt of the estate, but he has also become a lightning rod of controversy in the case. If he applies for the position of trustee, he may be called upon to address questions raised in other pleadings about actions that appear to be contrary to the interest of Brown’s charity. Among these questions are:
The court also directed the circuit court to “review the propriety” of all fees related to the James Brown lawsuit, including attorneys’ and trustees’ fees.
The James Brown estate battle has received international attention and has raised several important public policy questions related to the control of private assets by the state, the future of private philanthropy in South Carolina, and the release of public documents under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
The case, in fact, may be considered historic. Brown’s estate plan established what may be the largest-ever private charity for educating needy students in South Carolina and Georgia.
This battle is over, but skirmishes may still be fought over who will control Brown’s estate in light of the May 8 court decision. The position of the Attorney General in Freedom of Information (FOIA) lawsuits may affect the final outcome.
One FOIA case is related to a multi-million dollar lawsuit in Richland County, filed against former trustees, Pope and Buchanan, in 2010 by Bauknight, AG McMaster, the Legacy Trust, Hynie and the some of the Brown children. They claimed Pope and Buchanan caused tens of millions in damages to the estate during the 18 months they served as trustees. Several documents requested by Pope under FOIA in that case have not been released.
The lawsuit was brought by the Wingate firm, but it is now unclear which plaintiffs remain. The Supreme Court voided Bauknight’s appointment and overturned the Legacy Trust, the AG has asked the court to be removed as a plaintiff, Hynie’s claim to be the wife was criticized by the court, and the children’s “good faith” in contesting the will was questioned.
Mark Gende of the Wingate firm has not responded to an email request to name his remaining clients in the Richland County case.
After Wednesday’s Supreme Court decision, Pope broke her longstanding silence on the case and issued a statement, encouraging AG Wilson to take the lead in righting the wrongs of the settlement deal. “If Attorney General Wilson—as the guardian of the public interest—will ensure that Brown’s fiduciaries do their duty to ‘vigorously defend’ James Brown’s dream as he intended, by the end of this year more than $2 million in scholarship funds should be ready to be disbursed annually for needy students.”
Pope said that as a fan of James Brown’s music, as a former public school teacher, and as someone who has vigorously defended the “I Feel Good” Trust for six years, she is looking forward to the day when Brown’s dream can be realized.
“The wait has been too long,” she said.
Four petitions had been filed following the Court’s February 27 decision to overturn a 2008 settlement deal by former Attorney General (AG) Henry McMaster. On Wednesday the Court denied all petitions and issued a revised opinion, sending the case back to Aiken County for further proceedings.
The settlement deal had been appealed to the Supreme Court by former trustees, Bob Buchanan of Aiken and Adele Pope of Newberry, who replaced Brown’s original trustees after they resigned in 2007.
On Friday, Pope said, “The May 8 decision of our Supreme Court ends the 6-year quest by James Brown’s original trustees, Brown’s companion and others—aided by 90 lawyers—to destroy James Brown’s dream of leaving his $100 million music empire to the James Brown ‘I Feel Good’ Trust, to be used solely for the education of needy and deserving students in Georgia and South Carolina.”
In his estate plan, Brown left his worldwide music empire to an education charity for needy students in South Carolina and Georgia. Brown left personal and household effects to six children named in the will. For certain grandchildren, he set up a family education fund of up to $2 million. To companion Tomirae Hynie, he left nothing.
Some of the children contested the will, asking for a greater share than Brown left to them, as did Hynie, who claimed to be Brown’s wife even though she was married to another man when she and Brown exchanged vows in 2001.
Before the second set of trustees could defend against the will contests, former AG McMaster intervened and rewrote Brown’s estate plan. The McMaster settlement deal took over half of Brown’s music empire from the charity and gave to “persons who had been specifically excluded” from inheriting it.
The McMaster deal was, wrote Supreme Court Chief Justice Jean Toal, “the government’s unprecedented encroachment into estate administration…” Under the McMaster deal, the AG gave himself the right to appoint the estate’s sole trustee, who serves “at his pleasure.”
The court rejected the petition of AG Alan Wilson to reinstate the settlement, which the court called unjust and unreasonable. The court further rejected the petition of Columbia C.P.A. Russell Bauknight to remain as trustee of the Brown estate—and voided his appointment.
The opinion states: “In light of our decision invalidating the compromise agreement, we likewise void Bauknight’s appointment, which was made in conjunction with the settlement agreement, and under which he was to serve at the pleasure of the AG.”
The court did, however, leave the door open for Bauknight to apply for the position when the case is returned to the circuit court in Aiken.
The circuit court was directed by the Supreme Court to appoint fiduciaries who will oversee matters “in accordance with the provisions of Brown’s estate and trust documents.” Presumably, that means trustees who will carry out James Brown’s estate plan as written.
Over Bauknight’s four-year service, he has paid off a multi-million dollar debt of the estate, but he has also become a lightning rod of controversy in the case. If he applies for the position of trustee, he may be called upon to address questions raised in other pleadings about actions that appear to be contrary to the interest of Brown’s charity. Among these questions are:
1) The $4.7 million at-death valuation. Bauknight has filed documents with the IRS that Brown’s worldwide music empire was valued at less than $5 million when he died on Christmas Day 2006. Before Bauknight, all previous fiduciaries placed the value at closer to $85-100 million, with publicity rights and copyrights to over 800 songs. According to original Brown trustee Albert “Buddy” Dallas, there was a $100 million offer to purchase the music empire placed on the judge’s desk in 2007. Bauknight has refused to release any documents in support of this low valuation, and he has refused to name the appraiser as required by law.Also in the opinion, the Supreme Court raised sharp questions about the validity of Hynie’s spousal claim and expressed doubts about whether the will contests of Hynie and Brown’s children were brought in “good faith.”
2) Hynie’s claim to be Brown’s wife. Bauknight has asserted to the IRS and in several courts that Hynie was Brown’s wife, knowing there was convincing evidence to the contrary—and knowing that such an assertion could seriously damage Brown’s charity. In May 2012, for example, Bauknight joined with Hynie and AG Alan Wilson to support a 5-year-old gag order related to Hynie’s abandoned diary. According to some sources, the diary offers clear evidence Hynie was not the wife and she knew it. That evidence could save up to $25 million for the charity, but Bauknight fought to keep the diary contents under wraps.
3) Bauknight’s failure to request restitution. Original trustee David Cannon entered an Alford plea in 2011 for taking more than $12 million from Brown over several years and for forging a document after Brown’s death. No restitution was requested by Bauknight, even though Cannon owns a million-dollar retirement home in Honduras.
The court also directed the circuit court to “review the propriety” of all fees related to the James Brown lawsuit, including attorneys’ and trustees’ fees.
The James Brown estate battle has received international attention and has raised several important public policy questions related to the control of private assets by the state, the future of private philanthropy in South Carolina, and the release of public documents under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
The case, in fact, may be considered historic. Brown’s estate plan established what may be the largest-ever private charity for educating needy students in South Carolina and Georgia.
This battle is over, but skirmishes may still be fought over who will control Brown’s estate in light of the May 8 court decision. The position of the Attorney General in Freedom of Information (FOIA) lawsuits may affect the final outcome.
One FOIA case is related to a multi-million dollar lawsuit in Richland County, filed against former trustees, Pope and Buchanan, in 2010 by Bauknight, AG McMaster, the Legacy Trust, Hynie and the some of the Brown children. They claimed Pope and Buchanan caused tens of millions in damages to the estate during the 18 months they served as trustees. Several documents requested by Pope under FOIA in that case have not been released.
The lawsuit was brought by the Wingate firm, but it is now unclear which plaintiffs remain. The Supreme Court voided Bauknight’s appointment and overturned the Legacy Trust, the AG has asked the court to be removed as a plaintiff, Hynie’s claim to be the wife was criticized by the court, and the children’s “good faith” in contesting the will was questioned.
Mark Gende of the Wingate firm has not responded to an email request to name his remaining clients in the Richland County case.
After Wednesday’s Supreme Court decision, Pope broke her longstanding silence on the case and issued a statement, encouraging AG Wilson to take the lead in righting the wrongs of the settlement deal. “If Attorney General Wilson—as the guardian of the public interest—will ensure that Brown’s fiduciaries do their duty to ‘vigorously defend’ James Brown’s dream as he intended, by the end of this year more than $2 million in scholarship funds should be ready to be disbursed annually for needy students.”
Pope said that as a fan of James Brown’s music, as a former public school teacher, and as someone who has vigorously defended the “I Feel Good” Trust for six years, she is looking forward to the day when Brown’s dream can be realized.
“The wait has been too long,” she said.
Categories: Must Read, News, Policy
Tags: Adele Pope, alan wilson, Bob Buchanan, FOIA, government takeover of estate, Henry McMaster, James Brown, Russell Bauknight, S.C. Attorney General
Tags: Adele Pope, alan wilson, Bob Buchanan, FOIA, government takeover of estate, Henry McMaster, James Brown, Russell Bauknight, S.C. Attorney General
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for commenting.
Your comment will be held for approval by the blog owner.