THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals


Sue B. Brigman,        Appellant,

v.

Johnny M. Brigman, Laverne Brigman, Ray Brigman, Percy W. Brigman, Flora Ann Johnson, Katherine Cassidy, Roberta Holmerod, Janice Sakala and Jodie Bethea,        Respondents.


Sue B. Brigman, Special Administrator of the Estate of W.A. Brigman, Jr.,        Appellant,

v.

Johnny M. Brigman,            Respondent.


Appeal From Marlboro County
C. Anthony Harris, Jr., Special Referee


Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-534
Submitted June 9, 2003 – Filed September 4, 2003  


REMANDED


John Ravenel Chase, of Florence, for Appellant.

Ralph L. Kelly, of Bennettsville, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM:  A special referee found the 1999 will of W.A. Brigman, Jr. was invalid.  Brigman’s wife, Sue Brigman, appeals. 

FACTS

W.A. Brigman, Jr. died on April 26, 1999.  Three days earlier, W.A. executed a new will.  The 1999 will replaced an earlier will dated April 12, 1994.  The 1999 will devised all of W.A.’s farmland, equipment, and livestock to his wife, Sue Brigman, in fee simple absolute.  In contrast, the 1994 will devised a life estate in the farm to Sue, with the remainder going to W.A.’s nephew, Johnny Mack Brigman.  The 1994 will also specified that Johnny Mack could work the farm and pay Sue a “reasonable rent.” Finally, Johnny Mack received the farm equipment and livestock outright.  Johnny Mack challenged the 1999 will in probate court. 

The case was removed to the circuit court and referred to a special referee.  The special referee issued an order denying probate of the 1999 will.  The special referee did not make any specific findings of fact or conclusions of law to support the decision to deny probate of the 1999 will.  The referee’s order simply summarizes the trial testimony and concludes that W.A. “was under undue influence, duress, or lack of testamentary intent or capacity.”

None of the legal conclusions we are asked to review rests on findings of facts.  See Atkinson v. Atkinson, 279 S.C. 454, 455, 309 S.E.2d 14, 15 (Ct. App. 1983).  The trial court’s order is void of findings of fact to support it’s ruling.  In fact, the trial court’s order is merely an inconsistent recitation of evidence and testimony presented during the trial without indication as to which the trial court believes. 

Because the record is insufficient to permit adequate review by this court, we remand this matter for specific findings of fact in support of the court’s decision.

REMANDED

GOOLSBY, HOWARD, and BEATTY, J.J., concur.