The “I Feel Good ” Trust

The South Carolina Supreme Court has affirmed sanctions in litigation brought involving the estate of the Godfather of Soul by his removed personal representative 

This appeal arises from an order of the circuit court striking the answer of Adele J. Pope for what the circuit court called her “pattern of frivolous filings and repeated attempts to delay, thereby demonstrating willfulness and bad faith” in a lawsuit against her for alleged misconduct during and after the time she served as personal representative of the Estate of James Brown. We affirm.

A long running battle

As we recently understated, “Disputes over the estate of entertainer James Brown . . . have persisted in the years since his untimely death.” In re Est. of Brown, 430 S.C. 474, 478, 846 S.E.2d 342, 344 (2020). To this day, almost 20 years later, no funds from Brown’s estate have been used to fulfill the purposes he set forth in the “‘I Feel Good’ Trust.”

Pope and Robert L. Buchanan Jr. were appointed in 2007 as special administrators and then personal representatives of Brown’s estate and trustees of the 2000 Irrevocable Trust after the original representatives were forced out on allegations of misconduct. Wilson, 403 S.C. at 416, 419, 743 S.E.2d at 749, 751. In 2008, former Attorney General Henry D. McMaster intervened in the administration of the estate and negotiated a settlement agreement that called for the removal of Pope and Buchanan as personal representatives, placing Respondent Russell L. Bauknight in their stead. 403 S.C. at 420, 743 S.E.2d at 751. The circuit court approved the settlement in 2009, id., and we affirmed the removal on appeal, 403 S.C. at 449, 743 S.E.2d at 767.

Upon her removal from the roles of personal representative and trustee in 2009, Pope began a massive effort to undo the settlement and her removal and to reassert her control over Brown’s estate and the trusts created under it. In 2010, Bauknight and others filed this lawsuit against Pope seeking damages for her misconduct in her former role as personal representative and trustee and for her continued actions to the detriment of the estate and the trusts even after she was removed from those roles. On April 10, 2023, Bauknight filed a motion for sanctions against Pope pursuant to Rule 11, SCRCP, and the South Carolina Frivolous Proceedings Sanctions Act. Bauknight argued Pope engaged in repeated “frivolous” and “serial, abusive filings” for the purpose of delay. Bauknight quoted this Court’s March 28, 2023 order in which we stated, “This case has been ongoing since 2010, and [Pope]’s frivolous filings and attempts to repeatedly delay the matter have frustrated the prompt resolution of this case.” See infra note 1.

The court

The circuit court determined Pope’s serial motions to lift the stay were frivolous. After reviewing Bauknight’s affidavit of attorneys’ fees and costs and analyzing the six factors outlined in Glasscock v. Glasscock, 304 S.C. 158, 403 S.E.2d 313 (1991), the circuit court imposed a monetary penalty of $32,137.50.4 The amount related to Bauknight’s defense of Pope’s “serial motions to lift stay, excluding the initial motion but including the petition to the Supreme Court.” Thus, the circuit court acted within its discretion when sanctioning Pope for attorneys’ fees and costs.