South Carolina’s Supreme Court has issued a significant ruling that protects the ability of individuals and companies serving in key fiduciary roles across the state.
The July 15, 2026 decision in South Carolina Board of Financial Institutions v. CDM Corporation, Inc. brings long-awaited clarity to what legally constitutes “trust business” under South Carolina law.
The court confirmed that most probate-related fiduciary work, including serving as a personal representative, guardian, conservator, or agent under a power of attorney, does not require banking-level regulation.
The case originated when the State Board of Financial Institutions argued that CDM Corporation and Guardian Fiduciary Services were effectively acting as trust companies by performing these fiduciary roles.
Under the Board’s position, any corporate fiduciary carrying out such duties would face a $15,000 application fee, nearly $20,000 in annual supervisory fees, and ongoing banking oversight requirements.
The Supreme Court rejected that interpretation entirely, drawing a clear line between trust companies managing trust funds and fiduciaries appointed by probate courts to administer estates or care for vulnerable individuals.
Justice Gary Hill authored the opinion, emphasising that South Carolina’s Probate Code specifically distinguishes roles like personal representative and conservator from trusts as a legal category.
The court noted that probate courts already provide robust oversight through required accountings, bonds, and the power to sanction or remove fiduciaries who fail in their duties.
The ruling makes clear that only acting as a trustee of an express trust triggers the Banking Code’s licensing requirements, leaving other fiduciary roles outside the Board’s regulatory reach.
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 such as Guardian Fiduciary Services when no suitable individual is available to take on these responsibilities.
The decision is considered a significant reassurance for both individuals and organisations who regularly serve in probate-related fiduciary roles throughout the state.
It preserves families’ ability to choose professional help when needed, keeping probate matters under the supervision of probate judges rather than banking regulators.
The ruling also ensures that serving as a personal representative or guardian remains accessible without burdensome and costly licensing requirements imposed by financial regulators.