Opinion ID: 1255263
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: issue ii: valuation of patewood

Text: Petitioners next argue that the term appraised value used in Item (9) of Mrs. Pate's Will is the fair market value of Patewood at the time of Mrs. Pate's death, as reflected by the warrant of appraisement; respondents argue that it is the fair market value of the home at the time Petitioners actually purchase the home. The Court of Appeals held that fair market value at the time of purchase is the proper value to be used. We reverse the Court of Appeals and hold that the fair market value at the time of Mrs. Pate's death is the proper appraised value. In ascertaining the intent of the testator, we must view the Will as a whole. May v. Riley , 279 S.C. 248, 305 S.E. (2d) 77 (1983); King V. South Carolina Tax Commission , 253 S.C. 646, 173 S.E. (2d) 75 (1970); Gist v. Brown , 236 S.C. 31, 113 S.E. (2d) 75 (1960). Further, a court must always first look to the language of the Will itself. Bagwell v. Alexander , 285 S.C. 331, 329 S.E. (2d) 771 (Ct. App. 1985). We find support for Petitioner's position by reading Items (9) and (13) of Mrs. Pate's Will together. Item (9) directs that Patewood be made available for purchase at its appraised value. The only language in the Will referring to appraisals is found in Item (13). Item (13) directs the executors to have all the property in the estate inventoried and appraised. In conducting this appraisal, executors are statutorily empowered to hire appraisers to assist them in ascertaining fair market value. S.C. Code Ann. § 62-3-707 (1987). The Court of Appeals cited § 62-3-707 in part, stating that appraisers are to ascertain fair market value of decedent's assets. 360 S.E. (2d) at 156. The Court of Appeals failed, however, to include additional language of the statute which explicitly directs appraisers to assist executors in determining fair market value as of the date of the decedent's death. [Emphasis added.] This language indicates that we are to be concerned with appraised value at death. Thus, the appraisal to be conducted pursuant to Item (13) must reflect value as of Mrs. Pate's death. Respondents contend that allowing Petitioners to purchase at the fair market value at time of death will result in a windfall to Petitioners should they choose not to exercise their option for a long period of time. A fair reading of Mrs. Pate's Will indicates, however, that Petitioners do not have an indefinite period of time within which to exercise the option; rather the Will provides that this option be exercised only if it becomes necessary to sell... prior to a final administration of the estate. The purchase of Patewood, if undertaken, was to take place only during the administration is value at the time of decedent's death. Accordingly, we hereby reverse the Court of Appeals on this issue. At oral argument, counsel informed the Court that the Internal Revenue Service successfully challenged the first warrant of appraisement as understating the value of Patewood. Since that challenge, a new warrant of appraisement has been filed. While we agree that the proper value is that found in the warrant, the warrant itself must be valid. Because the first warrant was successfully challenged, the value contained therein cannot be used. We therefore remand for the Master to determine whether a valid warrant of appraisement exists. If a valid warrant exists, the value it lists for Patewood is the price at which Petitioners may exercise their option to purchase Patewood. Reversed and remanded. GREGORY, C.J. and CHANDLER, FINNEY and TOAL, JJ., concur.