Skip to Main Content

Additional Nelson Mullins Alerts

Supreme Court of South Carolina building

July 15, 2026

A New SC Supreme Court Decision Protects Ability of Personal Representatives, Guardians, Attorneys in Fact, and Conservators to Serve

By Robert H. Brunson

For many South Carolinians, serving as a personal representative, guardian, conservator, or agent under a power of attorney is an important way to help a family member or friend through a difficult time. Some families also turn to professional fiduciary companies when no suitable individual is available. A July 15, 2026 South Carolina Supreme Court decision, South Carolina Board of Financial Institutions v. CDM Corporation, Inc., brings welcome clarity to what counts as “trust business” in our state — and confirms that most probate-related fiduciary work does not require banking-level regulation.

The case began when the State Board of Financial Institutions argued that CDM Corporation and Guardian Fiduciary Services were acting like trust companies simply by serving in roles such as personal representative, guardian, conservator, and agent under a power of attorney. Under the Board’s view, any corporate fiduciary performing these tasks would need to pay a $15,000 application fee, nearly $20,000 in annual supervisory fees, and submit to ongoing banking oversight. The Supreme Court rejected that interpretation, explaining that the Banking Code’s “trust business” provisions apply to banks and trust companies that manage trust funds or act as trustees — not to fiduciaries appointed by probate courts to administer estates or care for vulnerable individuals.

The opinion, authored by Justice Gary Hill, emphasized that South Carolina’s Probate Code specifically distinguishes roles like personal representative and conservator from trusts, and that probate courts already provide strong oversight through required accountings, bonds, and the ability to sanction or remove fiduciaries who fail in their duties. Because these roles are not “trusts” under the law, the Court held that companies serving in them are not conducting a “trust business” and do not need approval from the Board. Only acting as a trustee of an express trust triggers the Banking Code’s licensing requirements.

This decision is an important reassurance for both individuals and companies who serve in probate-related fiduciary roles. It preserves families’ ability to choose professional help when needed, keeps probate matters under the supervision of probate judges rather than banking regulators, and ensures that serving as a personal representative or guardian remains accessible without burdensome licensing requirements.