## Facts

- James Brown created a will and an irrevocable trust directing virtually all estate property (except personal and household effects) into the trust.
- The trust allocated $2 million for grandchildren’s education and directed the remainder to a charitable subtrust (“I Feel Good” Trust) to fund educational assistance for poor and financially needy students in South Carolina and Georgia.
- The instruments included no-contest clauses and intentional-omission language; the trust also stated no assets were intended for any former or future spouse.
- After Brown’s death, a purported spouse and several adult children sued to set aside the will and trust for undue influence and sought distribution by intestacy.
- The South Carolina Attorney General intervened to represent the public interest in the charitable trust.
- The Attorney General and family members negotiated a global settlement reallocating substantial value from the charitable plan to family members.
- The probate/trial court approved the settlement and ordered the estate’s personal representatives and at least one trustee to execute it over their objection.

## Issues

1. Whether a court may approve and enforce a settlement that substantially reallocates assets away from a clearly expressed charitable testamentary scheme to private heirs.
2. Whether the Attorney General’s parens patriae role and the court’s equitable authority over charitable trusts permit such a reallocation absent a valid charitable-trust doctrine justifying modification.
3. Whether the court may compel personal representatives and trustees to sign a settlement they contend violates their fiduciary duties to carry out the testator’s intent.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of South Carolina reversed the order approving and enforcing the settlement.
- The Court held the settlement impermissibly altered Brown’s expressed charitable plan by diverting charitable-trust assets to private beneficiaries.
- The Court concluded neither the Attorney General nor the court had authority to effect a wholesale reallocation inconsistent with Brown’s intent without a proper basis under charitable-trust modification doctrines.
- The Court held the fiduciaries could not be compelled to execute a settlement that conflicted with their duty to administer the estate and trust according to the governing instruments.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with administration under Brown’s will and trust, subject only to lawful, intent-consistent adjustments if warranted.

## Legal Principles

- A testator’s clearly expressed charitable intent governs administration of charitable gifts and may not be displaced by private compromise absent lawful grounds.
- The Attorney General’s parens patriae authority is to represent and protect charitable interests, not to consent to redirection of charitable assets contrary to the settlor’s plan.
- Courts may modify charitable trusts only under established doctrines (such as cy pres) when compliance is impossible, impracticable, or illegal, and any modification must remain as close as possible to the settlor’s intent.
- Estate fiduciaries have a duty to implement the testator’s intent as expressed in the instruments and generally may not be ordered to join an agreement that materially conflicts with that duty.

## Conclusion

The court set aside a settlement that diverted substantial assets from a testamentary charitable trust to family members, reaffirming that charitable testamentary intent controls and that neither the Attorney General nor a court may approve or compel a redistribution inconsistent with that intent without a valid, narrowly applied charitable-trust modification basis.


Wilson v. Dallas, 743 S.E.2d 746 (S.C. 2013)