SC court: Woman wasn’t James Brown’s legal wife, his money may go to SC, Ga. education
The long saga of the Godfather of Soul’s estate may be nearing a conclusion.
Following a South Carolina Supreme Court decision on Wednesday, James Brown’s estate cleared a final hurdle after nearly 14 years of dispute, and now his money can go to the education of “poor and ... needy children” as outlined in his will.
The court decided that a former partner of Brown who claimed to be his wife and to have a right to his estate was not actually his wife.
The court found that Tommie Rae Brown’s 2001 marriage to Brown was void because her previous marriage was not annulled before the ceremony with Brown.
After the two separated around 2003, they “had an on-and-off relationship until Brown passed away” but she could never be considered his common law wife because of a prior agreement, according to the court.
Because she was not his wife by the court’s interpretation, she has no legal claim to Brown’s money, the court ruled.
The ruling opens the way for Brown’s final wishes to be fulfilled with his “I Feel Good” Trust.
The trust, which would take in money from royalties and other assets of Brown’s, will “be used solely for the tuition, educational expenses and financial assistance of and for poor (and needy) children, youth or young adults” who seek to further their education in South Carolina and Georgia, according to Brown’s will.
“The ongoing litigation since Brown’s passing has thwarted his expressed wish that his estate be used for educational purposes,” the court wrote. “A fact confirmed by the parties in this case, who acknowledged that no scholarships have been paid for students to date, a point we find both extraordinary and lamentable.”
After Brown died on Christmas Day 2006, his estate was thrown into chaos with people claiming to be children and wives looking to get a piece of Brown’s extraordinary wealth. His estate underwent a complicated series of legal battles and rulings, some of which involved Gov. Henry McMaster when he was the state’s attorney general.
None of the Supreme Court judges dissented in the ruling.
This story was originally published June 17, 2020 at 7:11 PM.