THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

In The Court of Appeals 

Jerald Lamar Harbin, Special Fiduciary of the Franklin 

N. Harbin and Edna F. Harbin Living Trust, Appellant, 

v. 

Susan H. Williams, George T. Williams, Citifinancial 

Inc., and CFNA Receivables (SC) Inc., Defendants, 

Of whom Susan H. Williams is the Respondent. 

Appellate Case No. 2017-001924 

Appeal From Greenwood County 

Donald B. Hocker, Circuit Court Judge 

Published Opinion No. 5695 

Submitted October 1, 2019 – Filed December 18, 2019 

AFFIRMED 

Charles M. Watson, Jr., of Greenwood, for Appellant. 

Donna J. Jackson, of Clinton, for Respondent. 

THOMAS, J: In this declaratory judgment action, Jerald Lamar Harbin, Special 

Fiduciary of the Franklin N. Harbin and Edna F. Harbin Living Trust, appeals the 

circuit court's denial of his motion for a directed verdict on the issue of a cosettlor's authority to transfer property from a trust to Susan H. Williams. Jerald 

argues the trial court erred in (1) denying his motion for a directed verdict; (2) 

submitting the issue of a co-settlor's authority to the jury; and (3) denying his 

motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. We affirm. 
 

FACTS 

On January 16, 2000, Franklin N. and Edna F. Harbin created the Franklin N. 

Harbin and Edna F. Harbin Living Trust (the Trust). The same day, Franklin 

conveyed a farm on Old Laurens Highway and the property at issue, the Harbins' 

home at 313 Lakeshore Drive (the home property), to the Trust. 

The Trust named Franklin and Edna as settlors of the Trust. Article 2 of the Trust 

provided, "The Settlors shall act as Trustees during their lives. Upon the death or 

incapacity of either Settlor, the other Settlor shall act as Trustee alone." Article 3 

provided, "While both Settlors are living, either may: (1) withdraw property from 

this Trust . . . ." Article 4 provided for the Trust property to be divided equally 

among the children of the Trustees "[u]pon the death of both Settlors." 

On March 31, 2000, Franklin and Edna conveyed the farm from the Trust to their 

son, Stephen Harbin.1

 Franklin died on June 23, 2000. On November 30, 2005, 

Edna, acting as Trustee, conveyed the home property to herself for life with the 

remainder to her daughter, Susan Williams. On January 10, 2008, Edna and Susan 

mortgaged the home property. Edna died on March 21, 2011. 

Jerald Harbin was appointed Special Fiduciary of the Trust and filed this action 

seeking a declaration that the home property was part of the Trust. Jerald relied on 

Article 3, arguing it required both settlors to be alive to withdraw property from the 

Trust. Susan answered, demanding a jury trial. 

At a pretrial hearing, Jerald agreed to a jury trial. Susan argued the Trust was 

ambiguous. The trial court found there was "no ambiguity in the Trust document. 

But, even if I were to find an ambiguity, it would be a patent ambiguity and no 

extrinsic evidence is allowed . . . ." The court stated that although the Trust was 

subject to different interpretations as to whether Edna had the authority to transfer 

the home property, it was not "the same thing as ambiguity," and the question of 

Edna's authority was for the jury. Jerald argued, "[I]n light of your rulings, there is 

nothing to submit to the jury." The court disagreed. 

1

 There were five siblings: Michael Harbin (deceased), Jerald Harbin (the 

appellant), John Randall "Randy" Harbin (deceased), Stephen Harbin, and Susan 

Williams (the respondent). 
At trial, James Johnson, an attorney, testified he represented Franklin and Edna. 

He reviewed the Trust in 2000 and learned Susan and her husband were living with 

and taking care of Franklin and Edna in the home property. Johnson met with 

Franklin, Edna, and Susan to discuss the home property. However, the deed 

transferring the home property to Susan was not executed until 2005, after 

Franklin's death. 

At the close of all evidence, Jerald moved for a directed verdict on the ground 

there was no genuine issue of material fact, and he was entitled to a directed 

verdict as a matter of law. The court found "the Trust document itself does create 

an issue in (sic) fact." Thus, the court denied the motion. The court charged the 

jury that the sole issue before it was to determine whether Edna had the authority 

under the Trust to transfer the home property. The jury found Edna had the 

authority under the Trust to deed the property. This appeal followed. 

LAW/ANALYSIS 

1. Directed Verdict 

Jerald argues the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict 

because he construes Article 3 as unambiguously providing that the Trust limited 

the power to withdraw property specifically to the period of time when both 

settlors were living. We disagree. 

Article 3 provides if both settlors of the Trust are living, either may withdraw 

property from the Trust. Article 2 provides for the remaining settlor, after one 

settlor dies, to act as trustee alone. The Trust did not specifically grant the power 

to the surviving trustee to withdraw property from the Trust. Instead, the Trust 

allows a trustee "to exercise such powers as are conferred upon Trustees generally 

by the Uniform Trustees Powers Act (S.C. Code Ann. 62-7-701 (1990)) . . . ." 

Although the trial court stated the Trust was unambiguous, it also found the Trust 

was subject to different interpretations. We agree with the latter and find a trust 

that is subject to different, reasonable interpretations is inherently ambiguous. See 

S.C. Dep't of Nat. Res. v. Town of McClellanville, 345 S.C. 617, 623, 550 S.E.2d 

299, 302 (2001) ("A contract is ambiguous when the terms of the contract are 

reasonably susceptible of more than one interpretation."). When a trust is 

susceptible of more than one reasonable interpretation, a motion for a directed 

verdict should be denied. See Ecclesiastes Prod. Ministries v. Outparcel Assocs., 

LLC, 374 S.C. 483, 489, 649 S.E.2d 494, 497 (Ct. App. 2007) ("If the evidence as 
 

a whole is susceptible to more than one reasonable inference, a jury issue is created 

. . . . "); Clark v. S.C. Dep't of Pub. Safety, 362 S.C. 377, 382-83, 608 S.E.2d 573, 

576 (2005) (stating an appellate court will reverse a trial court's ruling "on a 

directed verdict motion only where there is no evidence to support the ruling or 

where the ruling is controlled by error of law"). Because we find the Trust was 

susceptible of more than one reasonable interpretation regarding Edna's authority 

to transfer property from the Trust after Franklin's death, we affirm the trial court's 

denial of Jerald's motion for a directed verdict. 

2. Submission to the Jury 

Jerald argues the trial court erred in submitting the issue of Edna's authority to the 

jury because either an unambiguous contract, or one with a patent ambiguity, 

present questions of law to be decided by the court. We disagree. 

As to Jerald's argument that the Trust was unambiguous, we already determined we 

find the Trust ambiguous regarding Edna's authority to transfer Trust property after 

Franklin's death. Thus, we review whether the trial court erred in submitting the 

issue to the jury because any ambiguity was patent. 

Jerald correctly notes that our South Carolina jurisprudence has long distinguished 

between patent and latent ambiguities in determining whether extrinsic evidence 

was admissible and whether the construction of an ambiguous document was a 

question of law for the court or a question of fact for the jury. In Hann v. Carolina 

Casualty Insurance Co., 252 S.C. 518, 524, 167 S.E.2d 420, 422 (1969) (quoting 

Jennings v. Talbert, 77 S.C. 454, 456, 58 S.E. 420, 421 (1907)), our supreme court 

defined the different ambiguities as follows: 

Ambiguities, however, are patent and latent; the 

distinction being that in the former case the uncertainty is 

one which arises upon the words of the will, deed, or 

other instrument as looked at in themselves, and before 

any attempt is made to apply them to the object which 

they describe, while in the latter case the uncertainty 

arises, not upon the words of the will, deed, or other 

instrument as looked at in themselves, but upon those 

words when applied to the object or subject which they 

describe. 
 

Our supreme court explained the distinction more fully and discussed the 

admissibility of extrinsic evidence in In re Estate of Prioleau, 361 S.C. 627, 632, 

606 S.E.2d 769, 772 (2004) as follows: 

Ambiguities may be patent or latent. "[T]he distinction 

being that in the former case the uncertainty is one which 

arises upon the words of the . . . instrument as looked at 

in themselves, and before any attempt is made to apply 

them to the object which they describe, while in the latter 

case the uncertainty arises, not upon the words of the . . . 

instrument as looked at in themselves, but upon those 

words when applied to the object or subject which they 

describe." In re Estate of Fabian, 326 S.C. 349, 353, 483 

S.E.2d 474, 476 (Ct. App. 1997) (citing Jennings v. 

Talbert, 77 S.C. 454, 456, 58 S.E. 420, 421 (1907)). A 

court may admit extrinsic evidence to determine whether 

a latent ambiguity exists. Id. at 353, 483 S.E.2d at 476. 

Our appellate courts have also noted only latent ambiguities present questions of 

fact for a jury. See Hann, 252 S.C. at 526, 167 S.E.2d at 423 ("[T]his court in a 

long line of cases dealing with ambiguities in insurance policies, which were in 

fact patent ambiguities, has held, either expressly or in effect, that the construction 

of the particular policy was a matter for determination by the court and that no jury 

issue was involved."); Cogdill v. Equity Life & Annuity Co., 262 S.C. 248, 253, 

203 S.E.2d 674, 677 (1974) (explaining a patent ambiguity in an insurance policy 

is to be construed by the court); Beaufort Cty. Sch. Dist. v. United Nat'l Ins. Co., 

392 S.C. 506, 526, 709 S.E.2d 85, 95-96 (Ct. App. 2011) ("Interpretation of an 

unambiguous policy, or a policy with a patent ambiguity, is for the court. 

Interpretation of a policy with a latent ambiguity is for the jury." (citations 

omitted)). 

In recent years, however, our supreme court has seemingly discarded the 

distinction between patent and latent ambiguities in determining whether the 

interpretation of a document is for the court or the jury. In interpreting an 

insurance policy, our supreme court did not distinguish between patent and latent 

ambiguities in Williams v. Government Employees Insurance Co. (GEICO), 409 

S.C. 586, 594, 762 S.E.2d 705, 710 (2014), and stated the following: 

"It is a question of law for the court whether the language 

of a contract is ambiguous." S.C. Dep't of Natural Res. v. 
Town of McClellanville, 345 S.C. 617, 623, 550 S.E.2d 

299, 302-03 (2001). The construction of a clear and 

unambiguous contract is a question of law for the court to 

determine. Hawkins v. Greenwood Dev. Corp., 328 S.C. 

585, 592, 493 S.E.2d 875, 878 (Ct. App. 1997). If the 

court decides the language is ambiguous, however, 

evidence may be admitted to show the intent of the 

parties, and the determination of the parties' intent 

becomes a question of fact for the fact-finder. 

Likewise, in interpreting a deed in South Carolina Department of Natural 

Resources v. Town of McClellanville, 345 S.C. 617, 623, 550 S.E.2d 299, 302-03 

(2001) (internal citations omitted), our supreme court discussed ambiguities 

without distinguishing between patent and latent, stating: 

It is a question of law for the court whether the language 

of a contract is ambiguous. Once the court decides the 

language is ambiguous, evidence may be admitted to 

show the intent of the parties. The determination of the 

parties' intent is then a question of fact. On the other 

hand, the construction of a clear and unambiguous deed 

is a question of law for the court. 

Following our supreme court's recent trend and its analyses in Williams and Town 

of McClellanville, we find the ambiguity in the Trust presented a question of fact, 

and the trial court did not err in submitting the ambiguity to the jury. 

3. Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV) 

Jerald summarily argues the trial court erred in denying his motion for JNOV. We 

disagree. 

"[A] motion for JNOV under Rule 50(b), SCRCP is a renewal of a directed verdict 

motion." Wright v. Craft, 372 S.C. 1, 20, 640 S.E.2d 486, 496 (Ct. App. 2006). 

"When reviewing the denial of a motion for directed verdict or JNOV, an appellate 

court must employ the same standard as the trial court by viewing the evidence and 

all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." 

Elam v. S.C. Dep't of Transp., 361 S.C. 9, 27-28, 602 S.E.2d 772, 782 (2004). "A 

motion for JNOV may be granted only if no reasonable jury could have reached 
 

the challenged verdict." Gastineau v. Murphy, 331 S.C. 565, 568, 503 S.E.2d 712, 

713 (1998). 

After the jury rendered its verdict, Jerald moved for JNOV "on the same grounds 

as set forth" in his directed verdict motion. The court denied the motion. For the 

same reasons set forth in our analysis of the directed verdict issue, we affirm. 

4. Reply Brief 

For the first time in his reply brief, Jerald argues only a settlor of the Trust had 

authority to distribute property from the Trust. He next argues the Trust required 

both settlors to be alive. Jerald maintains a trustee never had the authority to 

distribute property and Edna as the remaining trustee had no authority. We decline 

to address this issue because it was raised for the first time in the reply brief. See 

Bochette v. Bochette, 300 S.C. 109, 112, 386 S.E.2d 475, 477 (Ct. App. 1989) ("An 

appellant may not use either oral argument or the reply brief as a vehicle to argue 

issues not argued in the appellant's brief."); Divine v. Robbins, 385 S.C. 23, 44 n.4, 

683 S.E.2d 286, 297 n.4 (Ct. App. 2009) (declining to address an issue raised for 

the first time in a reply brief). 

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing analysis, we affirm the jury's verdict. 

AFFIRMED.2 

SHORT and GEATHERS, JJ., concur. 

2

 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.