## Facts

- William D. Holden, Sr. died intestate on January 3, 1992, survived by his wife (Mother), two sons (Sons), and grandchildren (Grandchildren) who were lineal descendants.
- After the death, each Son executed a written disclaimer broadly renouncing any interest in the estate.
- Counsel transmitted the disclaimers with a cover letter describing them as disclaimers “in favor of” Mother.
- Relying on the disclaimers, the personal representative distributed estate proceeds to Mother.
- The probate court later advised that, because of the disclaimers, the Sons would be treated as having predeceased the decedent and the Grandchildren might inherit under intestacy.
- To prevent the Grandchildren from taking, each Son executed a document styled “Revocation and Withdrawal of Disclaimer,” asserting the intent had been to benefit Mother as sole heir.
- The probate court upheld the disclaimers as effective and rejected the revocations, ordering that 50% of the estate be distributed to the Grandchildren.
- The circuit court reversed (treating the disclaimers as invalid under federal “qualified disclaimer” concepts), and the court of appeals reversed again, upholding the disclaimers.
- The Supreme Court of South Carolina granted certiorari.

## Issues

1. Whether the Sons’ disclaimers were valid and effective under South Carolina law (and not defeated by an attorney cover letter suggesting the disclaimers favored Mother).
2. Whether the disclaimers met federal “qualified disclaimer” requirements for tax purposes, given the cover letter’s characterization.
3. Whether the Sons could revoke or withdraw their disclaimers after execution and reliance in estate administration to prevent the Grandchildren from inheriting.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed the court of appeals as modified.
- The Sons’ disclaimers were valid and effective; the operative language was the disclaimers themselves, which did not direct where the interests would pass.
- The interests passed under South Carolina intestacy law as if the Sons had predeceased the decedent, resulting in inheritance by the Grandchildren.
- The attempted revocations were ineffective because the disclaimers had been executed and relied upon in distributing the estate.

## Legal Principles

- A disclaimer’s legal effect is determined by the text of the disclaimer instrument; an attorney’s explanatory cover letter does not alter an otherwise unconditional renunciation.
- State law governs the validity and effect of disclaimers as property-law instruments; federal “qualified disclaimer” rules primarily affect tax treatment and do not alone control state-law validity.
- A valid disclaimer causes the disclaimed interest to pass as if the disclaimant predeceased the decedent, unless statute provides otherwise, shifting the share to the next eligible intestate heirs.
- Once a disclaimer has been executed and acted upon in estate administration, the disclaimant cannot unilaterally revoke it to change the distribution after reliance and distribution.

## Conclusion

The court held the Sons’ unconditional disclaimers were valid and could not be rescinded after the estate relied on them, so the disclaimed intestate shares passed by operation of intestacy to the Grandchildren rather than being redirected to Mother through later “revocations.”


In re Estate of Holden, 539 S.E.2d 703 (S.C. 2000)