Callison Tighe Prevails for Client in Long-Running Probate Dispute: Court of Appeals Affirms Removal of Trustee
The South Carolina Court of Appeals recently upheld the Richland County Probate Court’s decision to remove William B. Walkup as trustee of a trust established for Callison Tighe’s client, Jane Baskin, a woman with cerebral palsy. The ruling marks the culmination of over six years of legal disputes over the management of the trust.
The beneficiary, Jane Baskin, was also awarded more than $130,000 in attorney’s fees. She was represented in the trial in Probate Court by Rick Detwiler of Callison Tighe. Harry Dixon of the law firm assisted in handling the case on appeal.
Background of the Trust Dispute
The trust was created by Eldridge Baskin upon his passing in 1990 to provide for his daughter, Jane Baskin. It specified that its funds were to be used “for the sole benefit of” his daughter “so long as she shall live.” She also inherited the family home in Columbia, where she had lived since 1959.
In June 2015, against her wishes, Walkup moved Ms. Baskin from her longtime home to an apartment complex he owned, citing high expenses. The apartment was not wheelchair accessible, significantly impacting her quality of life. When she insisted on returning home, Walkup attempted to relocate her to a nursing home against her will. In August of 2017, in an attempt to pressure Baskin to sell her home, Walkup informed her that the trust would no longer cover the insurance and utility costs because expenses were too high.
Legal Challenges and Trustee’s Conduct
Over the years, Walkup provided minimal communication about the trust’s financials. He spoke to Baskin about the trust only once, in 2008, after she hired a lawyer to request an accounting. In 2017, she retained attorney Alex Weatherly of Callison Tighe, who again requested an accounting.
During this time, Baskin relied heavily on her friend and caretaker, Michele Moseley. Despite admitting her needs, Walkup refused to provide the 24/7 care she needed and refused to approve funds to compensate Moseley for her services. By 2020, Moseley provided care 12 hours per week for Ms. Baskin without pay. Moseley also paid the insurance on the home because Ms. Baskin only received non-trust income of $860 per month.
Probate Court Proceedings
Callison Tighe filed the Probate Court action on Ms. Baskin’s behalf in July 2020, seeking Walkup’s removal as trustee and a full accounting of the trust’s funds. The case proceeded to trial in January 2021, and a temporary settlement was reached, allowing Walkup to remain trustee only for investment and tax-reporting purposes while Weatherly was appointed Special Administrator of the Trust. The agreement also stipulated that Baskin could return to her home and receive monthly payments.
However, in October 2021, Walkup claimed the agreement had “expired,” prompting an emergency court hearing. The court upheld the settlement, increased Baskin’s monthly payments, and scheduled the trial to resume in December 2021.
Final Ruling and Appeal
Following further legal proceedings, including the court’s denial of Walkup’s Motion for Probate Judge Amy McCullough to recuse herself, the trial resumed in August 2022. Judge Amy McCullough ruled in favor of Baskin, removing Walkup as trustee. The judge found that the relationship between the trustee and beneficiary had “deteriorated to a toxic level of litigation” and that Walkup’s removal was in Baskin’s best interest.
Walkup was also found in contempt of court and in breach of the settlement agreement. The court ordered him to pay $3,500 in sanctions and an additional $129,625.80 in attorney’s fees for Baskin.
Walkup appealed the decision. However, on January 15, 2025, the South Carolina Court of Appeals issued a unanimous ruling affirming the probate court’s decision in all respects. The case was then settled with Walkup paying in excess of the judgment amount plus accrued judgment interest.
Disclaimer: Any information regarding cases is intended only to be representative of the firm’s practice. These examples are not intended to, and cannot be relied upon, to predict the results in any other case.