- 20 - and Allene W. Stone; Rosalie Morris and E.E. Stone, IV shall each receive one-fourth (�) of Cedar Mountain. Notwithstanding the fore- going, neither Mary Fraser, Jack Stone [Eu- gene Earle Stone, IV], nor Rosalie Morris shall be entitled to receive more than one- fourth (�) of the total value of the net estates after estate taxes. The parties will use their best efforts to agree on the dimen- sions and appurtenances to the same prior to the final Court approval of the settlement. * * * * * * * Any disagreement over the provisions in this Section VI shall be submitted to binding arbitration before the American Arbitration Association or before an arbitrator appointed by the Probate Court of South Carolina. * * * * * * * VII. IMPLEMENTATION AND JURISDICTION * * * * * * * B. CONTINUING JURISDICTION The Probate Court * * * shall maintain continuing jurisdiction to resolve any dis- putes which shall arise during the implemen- tation and enforcement of this settlement agreement. * * * The 1994 plan for settlement also provided in part as follows: THE FOUR CHILDREN UNDERSTAND THAT ANY RESOLUTION OF THE ESTATE ISSUES MUST INCLUDE A COMPLETELY DEFINITIVE APPROACH TO THE DIVISION OF THE ASSETS OF THE PARENT’S [sic] ESTATES. THE SETTLEMENT SHALL NOT BE FINALIZED UNTIL THE CHILDREN HAVE DETERMINED THE WILLINGNESS OF THEIR FATHER TO ADDRESS THESE ESTATE ISSUES AND ANY CHILD MAY REFUSE TO FINALIZE THE AGREEMENT IF E.E. STONE, III REFUSES TO MAKE THE CHANGES TO HIS ESTATE PLAN PROVIDED FOR HEREIN. * * * The parties in the litigation among the children included thePage: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011