In re: Estate of John Dale Williamson

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

In re: Estate of John Dale Williamson

Doug Williamson, Respondent,

v.

Errick L. Williamson, individually and as personal
representative of the Estate of John Dale Williamson;
Derrick Williamson; and Robin Beckler, Respondents
below,

of whom Errick L. Williamson, individually, and Errick
L. Williams, as personal representative of the Estate of
John Dale Williamson is the Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2024-001466

Appeal From York County
Daniel Dewitt Hall, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2026-UP-067
Submitted January 2, 2026 – Filed February 18, 2026

AFFIRMED

Edward Bilbro Davis, of Bell, Davis & Pitt, PA, of
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.
James Nathanial Pierce, of Johnston Allison & Hord, PA,
of Charlotte, North Carolina, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Errick L. Williamson (Errick) appeals the circuit court's order
affirming the probate court's order granting partial summary judgment in favor of
Doug Williamson (Doug) and the denial of Errick's motion to withdraw or amend
his admissions, or alternatively to extend discovery. On appeal, Errick contends
the circuit court (1) erred in finding that Doug would be prejudiced by permitting
withdrawal of his admission pursuant to Rule 36(b) of the South Carolina Rules of
Civil Procedure and (2) abused its discretion by affirming the probate court's grant
of partial summary judgment. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR.

1. We hold the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in affirming the probate
court's denial of Errick's request to amend or withdraw his admissions. See
Stokes-Craven Holding Corp. v. McKenzie, 416 S.C. 517, 536, 787 S.E.2d 485,
495 (2016) ("A [circuit] court's rulings in matters related to discovery generally
will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion."); id.
("An abuse of discretion occurs when the [circuit] court's order is controlled by an
error of law or when there is no evidentiary support for the [circuit] court's factual
conclusions."). Although Errick's admission that John Dale Williamson did not
sign the will in question would further the merits of the proceeding to determine
the validity of the will's execution, we find Doug demonstrated he would be
prejudiced by the amendment or withdrawal of Errick's admission. See Rule 36(a),
SCRCP ("A party may serve upon any other party a written request for the
admission . . . of the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule 26(b) [of the
South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure] . . . ."); id. ("The matter is admitted
unless, within 30 days after service of the request, or within such shorter or longer
time as the court may allow or as stipulated in writing by the parties . . . the party
to whom the request is directed serves upon the party requesting the admission a
written answer or objection addressed to the matter . . . ."); Rule 36(b), SCRCP
("Any matter admitted under [Rule 36] is conclusively established unless the court
on motion permits withdrawal or amendment of the admission."); Scott v.
Greenville Hous. Auth., 353 S.C. 639, 645, 579 S.E.2d 151, 154 (Ct. App. 2003)
("South Carolina has long had the discovery rule that failure to respond to requests
for admissions renders any matter listed in the request conclusively admitted for
trial."); Nexstar Media Grp., Inc. v. Davis Roofing Grp., 431 S.C. 593, 603, 848
S.E.2d 597, 602 (Ct. App. 2020) ("However, South Carolina jurisprudence also
establishes a [circuit] court may use its discretion in finding requests to admit are
not deemed admitted when the circumstances indicate otherwise."); Scott, 353 S.C.
at 651, 579 S.E.2d at 157 ("[A circuit] court may allow a party to amend or
withdraw its answers to a request to admit when: (1) the presentation of the merits
is furthered by the amendment; and (2) the party who obtained the admission
cannot demonstrate prejudice because of the amendment." (quoting Com. Ctr. of
Greenville, Inc. v. W. Powers McElveen & Assocs., Inc., 347 S.C. 545, 557, 556
S.E.2d 718, 724 (Ct. App. 2001))); id. at 652, 579 S.E.2d at 158 ("Discovery is the
quintessence of preparation for trial and, when discovery rights are trampled,
prejudice must be presumed.").

2. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Errick, we hold the circuit
court did not err in affirming the probate court's grant of partial summary judgment
in favor of Doug because Errick did not raise a genuine issue of material fact as to
whether the will was properly executed. See USAA Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Clegg,
377 S.C. 643, 653, 661 S.E.2d 791, 796 (2008) (stating an appellate court reviews
the granting of a motion for summary judgment under "the same standard that
governs the [circuit] court under Rule 56(c) [of the South Carolina Rules of Civil
Procedure]"); Rule 56(c), SCRCP (providing that summary judgment is proper
when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on
file, together with the affidavits . . . show that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of
law"); Singleton v. Sherer, 377 S.C. 185, 197, 659 S.E.2d 196, 202 (Ct. App. 2008)
("On appeal from an order granting summary judgment, the appellate court will
review all ambiguities, conclusions, and inferences arising in and from the
evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party."). Errick's admission
that "John Dale Williamson did not sign the Last Will and Testament" did not
create a genuine issue of material fact regarding the validity of the will because a
testator's signature is required for proper execution. See Brooks v. Northwood
Little League, Inc., 327 S.C. 400, 403, 489 S.E.2d 647, 648 (Ct. App. 1997)
("[W]hen the evidence is susceptible of only one reasonable interpretation,
summary judgment may be granted."); Murphy v. Tyndall, 384 S.C. 50, 54, 681
S.E.2d 28, 30 (Ct. App. 2009) ("Because it is a drastic remedy, summary judgment
should be cautiously invoked so no person will be improperly deprived of a trial of
the disputed factual issues." (quoting Carolina All. For Fair Emp. v. S.C. Dep't of
Lab., Licensing, & Regul., 337 S.C. 476, 485, 523 S.E.2d 795, 799 (Ct. App.
1999))); S.C. Code Ann. § 62-2-502 (2022) (requiring that "every 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").
AFFIRMED.1

MCDONALD, HEWITT, AND TURNER, JJ., concur.

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