Pursuant to S.C. App. Ct. R. 240(f), Appellant hereby files this Reply to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss Appellant’s Appeal. In support of the Reply, the Appellant states as follows:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FACTUAL BACKGROUND.. 5

STANDARD OF REVIEW… 5

ARGUMENTS. 6

I.       The Appellant’s states valid claim(s) for relief 6

II.     The Respondent’s Motion is frivolous 6

CONCLUSION.. 7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. 8

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Doe v. Marion, 373 S.C. 390, 395, 645 S.E.2d 245, 247 (2007)……………………………………………………… 5

Ex parte Gregory, 378 S.C. at 437, 663 S.E.2d at 50…………………………………………………………………….. 6

Flateau v. Harrelson, 355 S.C. 197, 203, 584 S.E.2d 413, 415 (Ct. App. 2003)……………………………….. 5

In re O’Neill’s Estate, 259 S.C. 55, 190 S.E.2d 754 (1972)…………………………………………………………….. 5

Payton v. Payton, 270 S.C. 275 (1978)……………………………………………………………………………………….. 4

Rutland v. Holler, Dennis, Corbett, Ormond Garner (Law Firm), 371 S.C. 91, 637 S.E.2d 316 (Ct.App. 2006)…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 5

Statutes

Rule 12(b)(6)…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 5

SC Code § 15-36-10 (2019)……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 5

SC Code § 15-36-10(A)(4)(a)(iii)……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 5

Rules

S.C. App. Ct. R. 240(f)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This case concerns the validity of a will made by the deceased, Doyle Elton Pierce. Accordingly, on August 18, 2021, a judgment in favor of the Respondent entitled “ORDER ON MOTION TO DETERMINE VALIDITY OF WILL” was signed by this Court in this case. The Appellant subsequently filed a Motion for a New Trial on August 23, 2021. Thereafter, Appellant filed an Amended Motion for a New Trial in lieu of the already filed Motion for New Trial.

On or about October 1, 2021, the Court conducted a hearing for Appellant’s Motion for New Trial. Consequently, the Court denied the said Motion. It is worth noting that the Judge was so unfair that he did not even respond to any of Appellant’s mails asking for a legal explanation to his denial of Appellant’s Motion. Besides, the said Judge signed an Order, which the Respondent drafted without Appellant’s knowledge.  

On or about [ENTER DATE], Appellant filed a Notice of the Intention to Appeal the said Order, and the Appeal Brief thereof, to this Honorable Court. 

Consequently, on or about [ENTER DATE], the Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss Appellant’s Appeal.

Appellant hereby files this Reply to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The law as settled continues to govern procedure on appeal from the probate court to the circuit court today. As a general rule, the jurisdiction of the circuit court in matters coming from the court of probate is strictly appellate and review is had on the record made in the probate court without additional evidence. See Payton v. Payton, 270 S.C. 275 (1978). However, when an appeal is taken from a decision of the probate court on the issue of “will” or “no will,” the cause is transferred to the circuit court for a trial de novo of the factual issues as though it were an original cause in that court. In re O’Neill’s Estate, 259 S.C. 55, 190 S.E.2d 754 (1972).

ARGUMENTS

            I.             The Appellant’s states valid claim(s) for relief

“In deciding whether the trial court properly granted the motion to dismiss, the appellate court must consider whether the complaint, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, states any valid claim for relief.” See Doe v. Marion, 373 S.C. 390, 395, 645 S.E.2d 245, 247 (2007). (“In reviewing the dismissal of an action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), SCRCP, the appellate court applies the same standard of review as the trial court.”). A circuit court must deny a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) “if facts alleged and inferences reasonably deducible therefrom would entitle the plaintiff to relief on any theory of the case.” Flateau v. Harrelson, 355 S.C. 197, 203, 584 S.E.2d 413, 415 (Ct. App. 2003).  

Appellant avers that she presented a valid claim for relief. The Appellant avers that all the grounds in the Appeal are pleaded sufficiently to raise genuine claims for relief. Besides, the grounds in the Appeal are all based on factual evidence. In that regard, the Appellant avers that the Respondent’s Motion be dismissed.

                    II.  The Respondent’s Motion is frivolous

The law is against the filing of frivolous or bad faith Motions. See SC Code § 15-36-10 (2019). In that regard, an attorney may be sanctioned for filing a frivolous pleading, motion, or document if “a reasonable attorney presented with the same circumstances would believe that the procurement, initiation, continuation, or defense of a civil cause was intended merely to harass or injure the other party”. See SC Code § 15-36-10(A)(4)(a)(iii); See also Rutland v. Holler, Dennis, Corbett, Ormond Garner (Law Firm), 371 S.C. 91, 637 S.E.2d 316 (Ct.App. 2006). Further, a party and/or attorney may also be sanctioned for filing a pleading, motion, or other paper in bad faith whether or not there is good ground to support it. See Ex parte Gregory, 378 S.C. at 437, 663 S.E.2d at 50. 

The Appellant avers that the Respondent filed the Motion to Dismiss in a bid to harass and/or threaten the Appellant. Notably, the Appeal raises genuine grounds for relief against the Order of the Probate Court. In that regard, the Respondent’s Motion should be dismissed.

CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing arguments, and each of them, it is clear that Justice will not be properly served unless the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is denied. Accordingly, the Appellant prays that the Court dismisses the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss; and in the interest of justice, sanction the Respondent and/or Respondent’s Attorney(s) for filing frivolous and malicious Motions.

Respectfully Submitted,

     Dorothy Pierce, Appellant, pro se.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that, on [ENTER DATE], a copy of the foregoing Reply to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss was filed in this court. I further certify that on the said date, a copy of said document was mailed by first-class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, and properly addressed to the following: Richard H. McDuff, Esq. Merrell, Jahn & McDuff, P.A.119-B Professional Park Drive, Seneca, South Carolina 29678.

Respectfully Submitted,

     Dorothy Pierce, Appellant, pro se.

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )