Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

Feb. 25, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Joseph R. Dawson v. Heather Pounds

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 2024-001801

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (5)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Joseph R. Dawson, Jr., Appellant,

v.

Heather Pounds, Individually, as Agent Under Power of
Attorney, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of
Jane Rollins Dawson, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2024-001801

Appeal From Lexington County
Walton J. McLeod, IV, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2026-UP-089
Submitted January 2, 2026 – Filed February 25, 2026

AFFIRMED

Gregory E. Parker, Jr., of Parker Law, LLC, and Adam
Sinclair Ruffin, of Ruffin Law Firm, LLC, both of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Shelby K. Leonardi, of Polales Horton & Leonardi, LLP,
of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Joseph R. Dawson, Jr., appeals the circuit court's order
upholding the validity of the Last Will and Testament (the Will) of Jane Rollins
Dawson (Decedent). On appeal, Dawson argues the circuit court erred in (1)
upholding the validity of the Will, which he contends was improperly executed,
and (2) finding that neither the Will nor Decedent's act of adding Heather Pounds
as a joint owner of Decedent's bank accounts was the result of undue influence.
We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR.

1. We hold the circuit court did not err in upholding the validity of the Will
   because even if the contested witness's signature did not comply with statutory
   requirements, the notary satisfied the conditions of a second witness by observing
   Decedent's execution of the Will and thereafter signing it. See Hairston v.
   McMillan, 387 S.C. 439, 445, 692 S.E.2d 549, 552 (Ct. App. 2010) ("An action to
   contest a will is an action at law, and in such cases reviewing courts will not
   disturb the probate court's findings of fact unless a review of the record discloses
   no evidence to support them."). Dawson concedes the notary could serve as the
   second witness but contends the notary did not sign the Will but rather a wholly
   separate affidavit; however, we hold this page, which mirrored the language of
   section 62-2-503 of the South Carolina Code (2022), which governs the
   self-proving of a will by the incorporation of an affidavit, was included as part of
   the Will because Decedent and the witnesses also signed this page, it referred to
   executing "this instrument" as Decedent's will on numerous occasions, the Will did
   not contain page numbers, and the affidavit was incorporated as a part of the
   document. See S.C. Code Ann. § 62-2-502 (1)-(3) (2022) ("[E]very will shall be:
   (1) in writing; (2) signed by the testator or signed in the testator's name by some
   other individual in the testator's presence and by the testator's direction; and (3)
   signed by at least two individuals each of whom witnessed either the signing or the
   testator's acknowledgment of the signature or of the will."); Smith v. Lawton, 435
   S.C. 179, 188, 865 S.E.2d 782, 786 (Ct. App. 2021) ("A self-proved will
   incorporates an affidavit signed by the testator, the witnesses, and a notary into the
   will, declaring due execution of the will, testator's testamentary capacity, and that
   there was no undue influence upon the testator." (emphases added)).

2. We hold the circuit court did not err in finding neither the Will nor the addition
   of Pounds as a joint owner of Decedent's bank account was the product of undue
   influence. See Hairston, 387 S.C. at 445, 692 S.E.2d at 552 ("An action to contest
   a will is an action at law, and in such cases reviewing courts will not disturb the
   probate court's findings of fact unless a review of the record discloses no evidence
   to support them."). Although there was a presumption of undue influence as
   Pounds possessed power of attorney over Decedent, Pounds successfully rebutted
   this presumption and Dawson, possessing the ultimate burden of proof, failed to
   show Pounds exerted influence that amounted to force or coercion that destroyed
   Decedent's free agency. See S.C. Code Ann. § 62-3-407 (2022) ("Contestants of a
   will have the burden of establishing undue influence, fraud, duress, mistake,
   revocation, or lack of testamentary intent or capacity."); Gunnells v. Harkness, 431
   S.C. 116, 123, 847 S.E.2d 97, 100 (Ct. App. 2020) ("The existence of a fiduciary
   relationship between the influencer and the testatrix creates a rebuttable
   presumption of undue influence."); Howard v. Nasser, 364 S.C. 279, 288, 613
   S.E.2d 64, 68-69 (Ct. App. 2005) ("[A]lthough the proponents of the will must
   present evidence in rebuttal, they do not have to affirmatively disprove the
   existence of undue influence. Instead, the contestants of the will still retain the
   ultimate burden of proof to invalidate the will."); Wilson v. Dallas, 403 S.C. 411,
   437, 743 S.E.2d 746, 760 (2013) ("The influence necessary to void a will must
   amount to force and coercion."); In re Est. of Cumbee, 333 S.C. 664, 671, 511
   S.E.2d 390, 394 (Ct. App. 1999) ("In order to void a will on the ground of undue
   influence, the undue influence must destroy free agency and prevent the maker's
   exercise of judgment and free choice."); Swiger ex rel. DeHaven v. Smith, 426 S.C.
   408, 417, 827 S.E.2d 200, 204 (Ct. App. 2019) ("If the testator had the
   testamentary capacity to dispose of his property and was free and unrestrained in
   his volition at the time of making the will, the influence that may have inspired it
   or some provision of it will not be undue influence." (quoting Howard, 364 S.C. at
   289, 613 S.E.2d at 69)).

AFFIRMED.1

WILLIAMS, C.J., and THOMAS and CURTIS, JJ., concur.

1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.