Corrupt Probate Judge Danny Singleton Singlehandedly Botches Potential Family Settlement of the Doyle Pierce Estate
OCONEE PROBATE COURT
This troubling series of actions by Judge Singleton not only violates SCRCP Rule 43(k) but also highlights a severe lack of legal knowledge and judicial integrity.
In a shocking series of events, Judge Danny Singleton has demonstrated a troubling lack of adherence to legal protocols, singlehandedly botching the family settlement of the Doyle Pierce estate. The Private Family Settlement Order, executed under Singleton’s oversight, was non-compliant with the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure (SCRCP), Rule 43(k). The order was marred by procedural violations and undue pressure, raising significant concerns about the legitimacy of the settlement process.
The Widow claims that the settlement order violated several provisions of SCRCP Rule 43(k). Here’s a breakdown of the key issues:
Non-Open Court Settlement: At the outset of the status conference on October 11, 2023, which was called by the illegally appointed Special Administrator Adam Lee to discuss mostly his frustrations with estate administrations due to pending Appeal in the South Carolina Court of Appeals. Suddenly, Adam Lee resigned instead of tabling the issues he had in mind to the court and the parties. Upon the resignation of Mr. Lee, the judge immediately started mediating a settlement among the heirs. Judge Singleton stated that the meeting was not an open court session but merely a discussion to explore settlement options. Three parties then reached a partial agreement on the distribution of assets, administration of the estate and payment of debts. One of the parties was not present in court but was represented by his lawyer. According to SCRCP Rule 43(k), for an agreement to be valid without signatures, it must be made in an open court. The agreement in question did not meet this requirement.
Lack of Party Signatures: During the non-open court gathering, Judge Singleton insisted that parties would need to sign the Family Settlement Agreement. However, neither of the parties, except for the judge, signed the settlement.
Absence of Key Party: Only three parties were present at the conference. Jared Adam Pierce, residing in Finland, was not present. He only expressed agreement to his inheritance share via a brief video call, without providing consent to the entire settlement terms.
Undue Pressure on Widow: Judge Singleton exerted undue pressure on the Widow to settle, threatening the sale of the estate and dismissing the Widow’s marital significance with inappropriate comments. Such duress invalidates agreements under SCRCP Rule 43(k).
Improper Execution of Settlement: The judge stated that the settlement could not proceed until the appeal was withdrawn, and once signed, the Widow could withdraw her appeal. However, the settlement was drafted as an order and signed only by Judge Singleton on October 17, 2023. Attempts by the widow to adhere to SCRCP Rule 43(k) were ignored.
Failure to Mail Agreement: The judge assured Jared Adam Pierce who lives in Finland that he would receive a document to sign and return, but no such document was mailed, violating SCRCP Rule 43(k). None of the parties to the potential settlement signed the Settlement Agreement.
Coercion Through Threats: Judge Singleton repeatedly threatened to order the sale of estate assets if a settlement was not reached quickly, creating a coercive environment and jeopardizing the voluntary nature of the agreement. These threats were made with clear knowledge that there was an appeal regarding the estate of Doyle Pierce pending in the South Carolina Court of Appeals.
Impartiality and Bias: The judge demonstrated bias by favoring the children of Doyle Pierce with whom he studied at Seneca High School and making derogatory comments about the Widow’s marriage. Such behavior undermines the impartiality required in judicial proceedings.
Unauthorized Order Additions: Clauses not discussed during the non-open court gathering were added to the final order by Attorney for Jared Adam Pierce and Gregory Pierce, Mr. Richard H.McDuff, which was signed by the judge without party signatures, further violating SCRCP Rule 43(k).
The Widow's Objections Ignored: The widow's objections and suggested amendments to the agreement were dismissed, and the judge signed the settlement knowing that no consensus was reached, setting the stage for future litigation.
Ex Parte Communications: Judge Singleton displayed knowledge of the Widow’s personal life, suggesting ex parte communications with the Children of Doyle Pierce or their attorney, which is highly inappropriate.
Retaliatory Actions: When the widow Appealed his order on October 24, 2023, The Angry judge removed the Widow as Personal Representative (PR) of the estate without jurisdiction, halting the auction and breaching due process and procedural fairness.
This troubling series of actions by Judge Singleton not only violates SCRCP Rule 43(k) but also highlights a severe lack of legal knowledge and judicial integrity. His background, which includes only a two-year police science degree from Oconee Tri-County Technical College and no formal college degree, combined with his heavy-handed approach and improper conduct, renders him ill-suited for the probate court. Families dealing with the loss of loved ones require compassion and fairness, not the tyrannical and legally flawed rulings of a judge who treats probate matters as criminal cases. The community now faces the daunting task of addressing the fallout from this mismanaged settlement and questioning the qualifications necessary for such a critical judicial position.