Opinion ID: 1363862
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: effect of failure to list items on the warrant of appraisement

Text: It has long been the law in South Carolina that upon the testator's death, title to the personal property vests in the executor. Lenoir v. Sylvester , 17 S.C.L. (1 Bailey) 632 (1830); Crosland's Ex'rs. v. Murdock , 15 S.C.L. (4 McCord) 217 (1827). The failure to list an item in the inventory of an estate is not determinative of the title. Griffith Adm'x. v. Miller , 285 Ky. 675, 149 S.W. (2d) 11 (1941); Ginocchio v. Frederick , 19 Ill. App. (2d) 303, 153 N.E. (2d) 476 (1958). In fact, the respondents concede this point in their brief. Respondents certainly agree that if an individual has an ownership interest in real or personal property, the failure of the executor to properly inventory the item in and of itself could not divest a person of his ownership interest. Respondents contend that the inventory, which is indicative of ownership, coupled with a statement made by the appellant leads to the conclusion that the executor purposefully omitted the testator's household furnishings from the inventory. This claim is based on a two-sentence answer given by the appellant on cross examination in the probate court. When the respondents' attorney asked whether it was the appellant's job to look after the personal assets, the appellant responded, Well, I did what I thought was right, Mr. Robinson. I didn't come in and try to take over, or tell Fannie Mac what to do or a  that was her car as far as I was concerned, in fact, everything were hers, as far as I was concerned. When viewed in conjunction with the other 21 pages of appellant's testimony, it is evident that appellant believed, and correctly so, that everything belonged to his father's widow during her lifetime. The record clearly reveals that the appellant operated under the erroneous assumption that since the widow was entitled to custody, possession, and use of these items during her lifetime, it was not necessary to list them in the inventory on the Warrant of Appraisement. The respondents rely on Williams v. Mower , 29 S.C. 332, 7 S.E. 505 (1888) which states that where an executor willfully or intentionally omits a portion of the assets from the inventory of the testator's estate, he cannot later, for his own advantage, supply such an omission by falsifying his sworn return. We find the respondents' argument that the appellant willfully or intentionally omitted the household items from the inventory to be unpersuasive. Before a person can intentionally omit an item, he first must know that the item should be included. In the present case, the executor mistakenly failed to include the household goods in the inventory. As to unintentional errors or mistakes, the Mower case states, It [the law] recognizes the liability [sic] of the best and most careful persons to make mistakes and omissions, and therefore we cannot say that an inventory returned under oath by an executor is so absolutely conclusive against the executor as to preclude him from offering evidence to show such errors. Mower , 29 S.C. at 339, 7 S.E. at 508.