NEWBERRY — After nine years, the question of whether James Brown’s last wishes will be granted has been scheduled for a hearing.
At a June 18 status conference, Aiken Judge Doyet Early set a trial date of January/February 2016 on challenges to Brown’s will, and announced discovery can proceed immediately.
The S.C. Supreme Court resumed James Brown estate hearings in Aiken with an order issued June 10, and on June 18 Judge Early held a status conference at which attorneys identified several outstanding matters that must be addressed.
Among the “outstanding matters” were questions related to discovery; past fees; the status of DNA-proven children and James II; the determination of parties; whether the “diary” of Tommie Rae Hynie Brown can now be used by all parties; motions to reconsider the January 2015 order that Brown and Hynie Brown were married.
At a hearing in Bamberg on June 30, attorneys argued whether the Lukich v Lukich decision of the S.C. Supreme Court supported or challenged the claim of Brown’s companion to be his wife, and Judge Early advised attorneys that he would study the decision further.
Hynie was married to Javed Ahmed in 1997 before she and Brown exchanged vows in 2001, and she did not receive an annulment from her Ahmed marriage until 2004.
Brown’s marital status is an important determination because of the Federal Copyright Act, under which spouses are given certain rights related to copyrights. Brown’s estate plan funded his education charity, the “I Feel Good” Trust, with copyrights to over 850 songs and the rights to his image.
The hearing scheduled for early 2016 will deal with will contests brought in 2007 by five of six children named in Brown’s will and by companion Tommie Rae Hynie Brown. They alleged that “undue influence” induced Brown to leave his music empire to an education charity for needy students in South Carolina and Georgia.
The S.C. Supreme Court expressed doubts about the “undue influence” claim in its 2013 Wilson v Dallas decision, in which the Court overturned a 2009 settlement deal that gave over half of Brown’s music empire to those who had contested the will.
Brown’s will and trust documents include in terrorem clauses that say anyone who contests either document, receives nothing. Brown also made a voice recording in 1999 that stated his charitable intentions, that he wanted scholarships from his education charity to be awarded based on need, not on race.
Under Brown’s estate plan, household goods were given to six children named in the will, an education trust of up to $2 million was established for certain grandchildren, and his music empire was left to the “I Feel Good” Trust. Nothing was left to companion Hynie Brown, but after Brown’s death she claimed to be his wife, despite two signed agreements that she would make no claim against his estate and would never claim to be even his common-law wife.
At a November hearing on marital status, attorneys for the estate were prevented from presenting evidence that contradicted Hynie Brown’s spousal claim. Handwritten notes discovered in the Brown home, known as the “Hynie Diary,” were transcribed by the original trustees and distributed to over 40 people. In 2008, at the request of Hynie Brown’s attorneys, Judge Early required all copies returned to the Court—and without holding a hearing, he issued gag orders on the “diary” contents.
In early 2015 an anonymous source sent this reporter a copy of the “diary,” which showed Hynie Brown wrote in early 2006 how she pleaded with Brown to marry her. She also recorded his refusal, “I ain’t got no wife! You get nothing.”
Without allowing the “diary” evidence to be considered, Judge Early ruled in January 2015 that Hynie and Brown were married. Several children then filed motions to reconsider, the first step toward an appeal. Those motions had not been heard when the South Carolina Supreme Court intervened in February 2015 and suspended hearings in Aiken.
On June 10 the South Carolina Supreme Court ordered hearings in Aiken to be resumed, and the Court expressed appreciation to Judge Doyet Early for his management of these “complicated and contentious matters.” The order did not address Judge Early’s failure to comply with Supreme Court directive in Wilson v Dallas related to the appointment of three trustees as required under the estate plan.
The June 10 order also prohibited former trustee Adele Pope of Newberry from filing any motions or appeals in Brown’s estate and threatened her with contempt charges if she did.
Pope and Robert Buchanan of Aiken were the former trustees who appealed the 2009 settlement deal that gave over half of what Brown left to charity to those who contested the will.
In its 2013 Wilson v Dallas decision, the Supreme Court ruled with Pope and Buchanan that the settlement was a “dismemberment” of Brown’s estate plan, and the case was returned to Aiken for further proceedings. The Supreme Court did not return Pope and Buchanan as trustees, however, saying they could not “get along” with the children who had contested the will.
According to other filings, Pope has worked “pro bono publico” on behalf of the charity, without seeking payment, since the case returned to Aiken in 2013. In December 2014 the New York Times wrote, “Ms. Pope is still in court these days, pushing to have Judge Early follow the terms of Mr. Brown’s will. Ms. Hynie and five of the six children whom Mr. Brown recognized, on the other hand, are trying to secure a settlement similar to the scuttled state plan.”
Pope’s expulsion from James Brown proceedings was welcomed by other attorneys.
Robert Rosen of Charleston, Hynie Brown’s attorney, said of the June 10 Supreme Court order: “I was delighted with the decision, as was every lawyer in the case.”
Rosen has announced in several news stories that he wants another settlement, and he argued in November that the previous settlement deal was still valid, despite Wilson v Dallas.
Columbia attorney David Black of the Nexsen Pruet law firm, representing current trustee Russell Bauknight of Columbia, commented by email, “James Brown’s wish to provide scholarships to needy children is one step closer to becoming a reality. Throughout this case some of the prior Trustees have stood in the way of progress. With today’s (June 10) order, the South Carolina Supreme Court has sent a firm message. The court will no longer allow former fiduciaries to waste judicial resources by placing their own personal and pecuniary interests ahead of James Brown’s noble estate plan.”
David Bell, who represents DNA-proven son Michael Deon Brown, commented, “The best thing that has happened is getting Adele Pope out … Things will move quickly from here.”
Under the 2009 settlement deal, the children named in the will and Hynie Brown agreed to fight any claim made by someone other than a settling party—someone such as Bell’s client Michael, a DNA proven child.
The June 10 order did not address Richland 4900, a lawsuit in which Pope is still a party.
After Pope and Buchanan appealed the 2009 settlement, they were sued by current trustee Russell Bauknight, by those who contested the will, and perhaps by the Attorney General (AG). Although the AG denies being a plaintiff, Bauknight has claimed in filings that he brought the lawsuit on behalf of the AG.
In Richland 4900 Bauknight alleges Pope and Buchanan damaged the estate by “tens of millions” during the 18 months they served as trustees — even though Bauknight has filed documents with the IRS that set the at-death value of Brown’s music empire at only $4.7 million.
Richland Judge Casey Manning is assigned to Richland 4900, but no hearings have been held since 2011. Only weeks before the Aiken hearings were suspended in February, Judge Manning and Judge Early issued a joint mediation order for Aiken cases and Richland 4900.
At the June 18 status conference, attorney Alan Medlin, representing Hynie Brown, asked if the order for joint mediation is still valid, and Judge Early said he would speak to Judge Manning.
In other James Brown matters, Bauknight has not filed a 2014 accounting for the estate with the Aiken Probate Court. Therefore, it is not known whether – or by how much – Brown’s “I Feel Good” Trust benefited from the 2014 biopic, “Get On Up,” and documentary, “Mr. Dynamite: The Rise of James Brown.”
More than a dozen attorneys were present for the June 18 status conference in Aiken, but none reported on or raised questions about the status of the “I Feel Good” Trust or about the failure of Bauknight to file the 2014 accounting with the Aiken Probate Court.
The next hearing in the James Brown estate has been scheduled for Aug. 18 in Bamberg at 2 p.m.