Rider v. Estate of Rider
407 S.C. 386, 756 S.E. 2d 136, 83 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 228 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Article 8 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), a valid entitlement order to transfer securities is effective on the date it is made and does not become ineffective due to a subsequent change in circumstances, such as the death of the entitlement holder, thereby displacing conflicting common law agency principles.
Facts:
- Charles Galen Rider ('Husband') held an Investment Agency Agreement with Wachovia Bank ('Wachovia'), authorizing the bank to manage his securities account as his agent.
- The agreement stated it would terminate upon Wachovia receiving actual knowledge of Husband's death, but that his death would not affect the validity of 'prior actions'.
- On June 8, 2005, Husband, who was suffering from terminal cancer, verbally instructed Wachovia to transfer $2 million in securities from his account to a new account for his wife, Carolyn S. Rider ('Wife').
- On June 17, 2005, Husband signed and returned a letter provided by Wachovia, formally authorizing and directing the bank to transfer a specific list of assets totaling $2 million to Wife's new account.
- Wachovia began the transfer in a series of transactions, with the first two occurring on June 21 and July 8, 2005.
- Husband died on the afternoon of July 8, 2005, and Wachovia was notified of his death the same day.
- After being notified of Husband's death, Wachovia processed two more transfers to Wife's account on July 11, 2005, and October 20, 2005, to complete the $2 million directive.
Procedural Posture:
- The personal representative of Husband’s estate filed a declaratory judgment action in the probate court for Beaufort County to determine ownership of the securities transferred after Husband's death.
- The probate court ruled that the transfers completed before Wachovia learned of Husband's death were valid, but the final transfer made in October was part of the probate estate.
- Wife appealed to the circuit court, which affirmed the probate court's order.
- Wife then appealed to the South Carolina Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, but reasoned that under common law agency, the bank's authority terminated upon notice of Husband's death, making all transfers after that point invalid (though it only ruled on the final transfer as no cross-appeal was filed on the third).
- The Supreme Court of South Carolina granted Wife’s petition for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does South Carolina’s Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) displace common law agency rules, thereby making a valid securities entitlement order effective and irrevocable as of the date it is made, even if the entitlement holder dies before the securities intermediary fully completes the transfer?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Beatty
Yes, the UCC displaces common law agency rules in this context, making the entitlement order effective and irrevocable upon issuance. Under Article 8 of the UCC, Husband’s June 17 directive was a valid 'entitlement order' issued by an 'entitlement holder' to a 'securities intermediary.' The court focused on UCC § 36-8-107(e), which states that the effectiveness of an entitlement order is determined 'as of the date the ... entitlement order is made' and 'does not become ineffective by reason of any later change in circumstances.' The lower court erred by applying the common law agency rule that an agent's authority terminates upon the principal's death, as this thwarts the UCC's purpose of promoting liquidity and finality in securities transactions. The court also found the lower court's focus on when a 'book entry' was made to be too narrow. Under UCC § 36-8-501(b)(3), a security entitlement is also created when an intermediary 'becomes obligated under other law... to credit a financial asset to the person’s securities account.' Once Husband issued the valid order, Wachovia became legally obligated to complete the transfer, and its delay in doing so did not invalidate Wife's entitlement to the assets. Therefore, all securities designated in the June 17 order belong to Wife, not Husband's probate estate.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the primacy of the Uniform Commercial Code over common law agency principles in the context of the modern indirect securities holding system. By holding that a valid entitlement order is irrevocable upon issuance, regardless of the entitlement holder's subsequent death, the court provides certainty and finality for securities intermediaries and investors. This precedent protects intermediaries who act on such orders and ensures that the stated intent of the account holder is fulfilled, reinforcing the UCC's goals of uniformity and liquidity. Future cases involving disputes over securities transfers initiated before death will now look to the UCC's specific provisions rather than general agency law.
