Spence Ex Rel. Estate of Spence v. Wingate
Court of Appeals of South Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtThomas, J.
This is a legal malpractice action. The trial judge granted partial summary judgment to Respondents Kenneth B. Win-gate and his law firm, Sweeney Wingate & Barrow, finding they did not owe a fiduciary duty to Deborah Spence (Wife) concerning her late husband’s life insurance policy. Wife appeals. We affirm.
FACTS
Viewing the record in the light most favorable to Wife, we find the following: On August 18, 2001, Wingate commenced legal representation of Wife. The purpose of the representation was to negotiate an agreement on Wife’s behalf with the four sons of her husband, Congressman Floyd W.…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Shealy v. Aiken CountySupreme Court of South Carolina · 2000
- Pye v. Estate of Fox Ex Rel. Estate of FoxSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2006
- Jones v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2005
- Van Blarcum v. City of North Myrtle BeachCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1999
- Nexsen v. HaddockCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2002
3Cited by5 opinions
- Spence v. WingateSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2011
- Spence Ex Rel. Estate of Spence v. WingateSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2009
- Spence v. WingateCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2009
- Spence Ex Rel. Estate of Spence v. WingateCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2008
- Spence v. WingateSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2011