STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) IN THE CIRCUIT COURT

)
COUNTY OF HORRY ) C/A NO. 2019-CP-26-____
)
Bryan Braddock, as Personal )
Representative of the Estate of Peggy ) COMPLAINT
Jo Rabon and Rabon & Rabon, Inc., ) (Jury Trial Demanded)
MB Boardwalk Entertainment, LLC; )
and Rabon & Rabon, Inc., ) 1. Conspiracy
) 2. Aiding and Abetting Breach of
Plaintiff, ) Fiduciary Duty
) 3. Breach of Fiduciary Duty
vs. ) 4. Professional Negligence
) 5. Negligent Supervision
David Hicks, Esq.; MACDONALD & ) 6. Breach of Contract
HICKS, P.A.; Lane D. Jefferies, Esq.; )
Henrietta U. Golding, Esq., MCNAIR )
LAW FIRM, P.A., n/k/a BURR & FORMAN, )
LLP, )
Defendants. )

Plaintiff, Bryan Braddock, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Peggy Jo

Rabon, Rabon & Rabon, Inc., and MB Boardwalk Entertainment, LLC complaining of

Defendants, David Hicks, Esq.; MACDONALD & HICKS, P.A.; Lane D. Jefferies, Esq.;

Henrietta U. Golding, Esq.; and MCNAIR LAW FIRM would respectfully show the Court as

follows:

SUMMARY OF THE CASE

1. In 2014, Peggy Jo Rabon hired Henrietta Golding to represent herself and her

company, Rabon & Rabon, Inc., with regard to disputes arising with her daughter, Ms.

Mitchell, and her son-in-law, Mr. Mitchell. Over the course of the next four years, the

defendant attorneys destroyed not only the financial legacy of Peggy Jo Rabon, but the

interpersonal relationship between her children. This campaign of destruction was by

design. Rather than meet the stated goal of Jack Rabon, the client, by attempting to

preserve the assets and reconcile the family, the Defendant lawyers unilaterally waged a

Page 1 of 49
war of inflammation and destruction against the assets of both family companies (Rabon

& Rabon, Inc. and MB Boardwalk Entertainment, LLC) and the children of Peggy Jo

Rabon. The intentional actions of the Lawyers were for a singular purpose: to fleece the

remaining assets of the Rabon Legacy for the financial benefit of the lawyers. Along the

way, David Hicks and his law firm assisted in destroying the family and insuring that the

most important asset of the family, MB Boardwalk Entertainment, LLC, remain insolvent.

PARTIES

2. Defendant, David C. Hicks, Esq. (“Mr. Hicks”) is, upon information and belief, a

citizen and resident of Horry County, South Carolina, and is a lawyer licensed to practice

law in this State.

3. Defendant, MACDONALD & HICKS, P.A. (“Hicks Firm”) is, upon information and belief,

a professional association organized and existing under the laws of the State of South

Carolina, with an office in Horry County, South Carolina.

4. Defendant, Lane D. Jefferies, Esq. (“Mr. Jefferies”) is, upon information and belief,

a citizen and resident of Horry County, South Carolina, and is a lawyer licensed to practice

law in this State.

5. Defendant, Henrietta U. Golding, Esq. (“Ms. Golding”) is, upon information and

belief, a citizen and resident of Horry County, South Carolina, and is a lawyer licensed to

practice law in this State.

6. Defendant, MCNAIR LAW FIRM, P.A., n/k/a BURR & FORMAN, LLP (“McNair”), is a law

firm organized as a South Carolina professional association and has offices in Horry

County, South Carolina.

Page 2 of 49
 7. McNair is still listed in the South Carolina Secretary of State’s Website as an active

corporation in good standing. Burr & Forman, LLP is a limited liability partnership

incorporated in Alabama. Burr & Forman, LLP, is either a mere continuation of McNair,

or at least as to these Plaintiffs; or Burr & Forman, LLP, agreed to assume the liabilities

of McNair, or at least as to these Plaintiffs; or the circumstances surrounding the creation

of Burr & Formal, LLP; or the representations provided to these Plaintiffs support a finding

of consolidation or merger of McNair and Burr & Forman, LLP. For simplicity’s sake and

to the extent necessary, references in this Complaint to “McNair” are intended to include

and encompass Burr & Forman, LLP.

8. Plaintiff, Bryan Braddock, Esq., is a citizen and resident of Florence County, South

Carolina; a licensed South Carolina lawyer; and was appointed as successor Personal

Representative of the Estate of Peggy Jo Rabon by Order of the Horry County Probate

Court executed by the Honorable Carroll D. Padgett, Jr., on October 16, 2018, through

the initial probate case and number: Estate of Peggy Jo Rabon, 2014-ES-26-01933

(“Estate Case”).

9. Plaintiff, MB BOARDWALK ENTERTAINMENT, LLC (“MB BOARDWALK”) is a limited liability

company organized and existing under the laws of the State of South Carolina, owning

property and operating within Horry County, South Carolina.

10. Plaintiff, RABON & RABON, INC. (“Rabon”), is a South Carolina Corporation with its

principal place of business located in Horry County, South Carolina.

JURISDICTION

11. The Circuit Court has jurisdiction over these matters based upon Article V of the

South Carolina Constitution, S.C. CODE ANN. §§ 36-2-802 and 36-2-803 (1976), § 62-1-

Page 3 of 49
302 (1976, Supp. 2018), and its plenary powers.

VENUE

12. Venue is proper in Horry County, as it is, upon information and belief, the county

of residence of Mr. Hicks, Mr. Jefferies, and Ms. Golding. Horry County was the principal

place of business for Mr. Hicks, Mr. Jefferies, and Ms. Golding at the time the causes of

action asserted in this Complaint arose, and a substantial portion of the facts, actions and

omissions alleged herein occurred within Horry County.

FACTS

The Legacy of Peggy Jo Rabon

13. Prior to the incompetent legal work performed by the Defendant lawyers, the

Rabon family owned 11 prime properties in in Myrtle Beach. A substantial part of the

interests of those properties should have been included in the estate. By the end of the

respective representations complained of herein, the Rabon family, the corporation and

the estate had lost tremendously valuable business opportunities, all 11 properties, and

the estate is saddled with a judgment in excess of $550,000.

14. In addition to the loss of all 11 properties and the deficiency judgement in excess

of $550,000.00, the Rabon family paid Ms. Golding and Mr. Jefferies well over

$120,000.00 in attorneys’ fees.

15. The Rabon family consisted of four family members:

a. the mother, Peggy Jo Hardee Rabon (“Peggy”);

b. Peggy’s son, Jack Isaiah Rabon, Jr. (“Jack Rabon”)

c. Jack Rabon’s wife, Nichole Rabon (“Nichole Rabon”);

d. Peggy’s daughter, Karon Mitchell (“Ms. Mitchell”); and

Page 4 of 49
 e. Ms. Mitchell’s husband, Kyle Mitchell (“Mr. Mitchell”) (collectively “the

Family”).

16. Through business entities, the Family owned several pieces of property in Horry

County. The business entities changed names over time, with the following two entities

being used by the Family to hold title to various pieces of property during times discussed

in the present action:

a. RABON & RABON, Inc., d/b/a SEA PALMS MOTEL (“R&R”); and

b. MB BOARDWALK ENTERTAINMENT, LLC (“MB Boardwalk”).

17. For all intents and purposes, property and assets of R&R and MB BOARDWALK

were used for the benefit of each business and the direct benefit of the Family with no

separation of the properties between each entity or management of the entities. The

members of each entity owed fiduciary duties to one another through each entity. On the

key properties were four hotels that had been operated and managed successfully and

profitably by Ms. Mitchell and Mr. Mitchell for over twenty-five years.

18. The businesses owned several pieces of property in Myrtle Beach:

Owning Entity Lot and Block RMS Common name

MB BOARDWALK Lot 7, Blk 19 181-11-03-009 Parking lot
MB BOARDWALK Lot 4, Blk 1 181-11-05-007 Shark Attack
44401030017

Lot 5, 6, Blk 1 181-11-05-008

44401030018
R&R Lot 7, Blk 18 181-07-02-002 Sea Palms #1
444-01-04-0040
R&R Lot 1, Blk 19 181-11-03-003 Sea Palms #2
444-02-04-0042
---or -01-04-0042?
R&R Lots 17 and 18, 181-11-03-002 Sea Palms #3
Block 19
R&R Lot 2, Block 19 181-11-03-004 Sea Palms #3
R&R Lot 3, Block 19 181-11-03-005 Brick House

Page 5 of 49
 Owning Entity Lot and Block RMS Common name
R&R Lot 1, Blk 15 181-11-04-005 Sea Palms #4

19. With the goal of building a sustainable and profitable miniature golf business, the

family developed Shark Attack through MB Boardwalk.

The West Town Loan and the Hicks Escrow Agreements

20. To that end, Ms. Mitchell and Mr. Mitchell contacted Riddick Skinner, a banker

with W EST TOWN SAVINGS BANK n/k/a W EST TOWN BANK & TRUST (“W EST TOWN”), to finance

a loan for construction of Shark Attack.

21. Mr. Skinner advised using a USDA loan and using Mr. Hicks as the lawyer to

represent them for the closing.

22. By the time Mr. Hicks became involved with Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Mitchell, Jack Rabon,

Peggy, MB BOARDWALK and R&R, the dealings between Ms. Mitchell and Mr. Mitchell on

the one hand and Jack Rabon on the other had deteriorated, with various police reports

being filed against Jack Rabon for his threatening and abusive behavior. Mr. Hicks was

on notice that the goals and motivations of Jack Rabon were not in line with the goals and

motivations of Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Mitchell, MB BOARDWALK, and/or R&R.

23. During this period of time, Peggy was less and less involved in the operation of

MB BOARDWALK and R&R.

24. At the time of Mr. Hicks’ first involvement, he was working in a law firm known as

Rice, MacDonald & Hicks, P.A.

25. Mr. Hicks advised and approved of the use of properties owned by R&R to serve

as collateral for the contemplated $3.6M USDA loan, even though the loan was being

made to a newly formed company that was ultimately named MB BOARDWALK.

Page 6 of 49
 26. Despite having knowledge or reason to know of the already tumultuous

relationship between Jack Rabon on the one hand and Ms. Mitchell and Mr. Mitchell on

the other, Mr. Hicks never advised or suggested the inclusion of any protective

mechanisms in the corporate structure and/or operating agreement he created for MB

BOARDWALK.

27. The advice that Mr. Hicks provided to Ms. Mitchell and Mr. Mitchell prior to and

after the closing of the loan created an attorney-client relationship between Mr. Hicks and

R&R, Mr. Hicks and the eventually formed MB BOARDWALK, and between Mr. Hicks and

Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Mitchell, Jack Rabon, and Peggy, as individuals.

28. As part of the closing on the $3.6M loan, Mr. Hicks drafted two Escrow

Agreements, each dated April 27, 2012.

29. The “First Escrow Agreement” recited that $1.6M in proceeds from the $3.6M loan

were to be escrowed for payment of construction expenses. The First Escrow Agreement

is attached as “Exhibit 1.”

30. The “Second Escrow Agreement,” attached as “Exhibit 2,” recited that $80,000 in

funds were to be escrowed for payment of taxes due on properties used as collateral to

secure the $3.6M loan.

31. After the $3.6M loan closed, construction moved forward with the new facility on

the ocean front lots owned by MB Boardwalk.

32. During construction, Mr. Skinner notified Ms. Mitchell and Mr. Mitchell that the

project would require more money to complete. With Mr. Hicks continuing to serve as

counsel to R&R and MB BOARDWALK and as the closing lawyer and escrow agent, a

second loan for $300,000 was taken out (“the $300k Loan”) through the Small Business

Page 7 of 49
Administration (“SBA”), again using properties owned by R&R and MB BOARDWALK as

collateral.

33. Mr. Hicks drafted two escrow agreements in connection with the $300k Loan, both

dated February 20, 2013.

34. The “Third Escrow Agreement,” entitled AMENDMENT TO ESCROW AGREEMENT,

recited that $189,009 was to be escrowed for purposes of disbursing funds for demolition

and construction costs associated with the golf course project. The “Third Escrow

Agreement” is attached as “Exhibit 3.”

35. The “Fourth Escrow Agreement,” attached as “Exhibit 4,” recited that $45,086.66

was to be escrowed for the purpose of releasing all or a portion of the escrowed funds for

the payment of real property taxes and personal property taxes for the year 2012 on the

collateral for the $300k Loan.

36. Mr. Hicks advised Peggy to execute a personal guaranty as part of both the $3.6M

Loan and the $300k Loan, without explaining the fact that such a personal guaranty would

always be enforceable individually, regardless of the resulting or future corporate

structure of R&R and/or MB BOARDWALK or future difficulties between the family members.

37. All members of the Family were involved in all the loan transactions discussed in

this Complaint. All members of the Family signed a personal guaranty for each loan

transaction discussed in this Complaint, making each and all personally liable for the

loans discussed in this Complaint.

38. The cross collateralization of the R&R properties for the MB Boardwalk loan, and

the personal guaranties by all members of the family, created a joint venture between

R&R, MB Boardwalk Entertainment, LLC, and every member of the family.

Page 8 of 49
 39. Upon information and belief, by the end of calendar year 2012, all taxes on all

property used for collateral were paid and were current.

40. On July 1, 2013, W EST TOWN, Plaintiff and Mr. Hicks, as Escrow Agent, executed

a Termination of Escrow Agreement (“the Termination”), attached as “Exhibit 5.”

41. The Termination recites that the Escrow Agreement date April 27, 2012, and the

Amendment to Escrow Agreement dated February 20, 2013, were terminated, and that

the Escrow Agent was directed to disburse the balance of the funds in escrow directly to

the borrowers.

42. The table below provides a summary of the various documents Mr. Hicks drafted

and advised Peggy to enter, as related to escrow of funds:

Date Amount Document Parties Reason

04-27-2012 $1,636,146.25 First WEST TOWN (1st Party) Escrow funds for the
Escrow Boardwalk Entertainment demolition of existing
Agreement (2nd Party) structure or construction
Hicks (Escrow Agent)
04-27-2012 $80,148.46 Second Escrow WEST TOWN (1st Party) Escrow for payment of
Agreement Boardwalk Entertainment real property taxes for
(2nd Party) the year 2011 on the
R&R (2nd Party) collateral
Hicks (Escrow Agent)
02-20-2013 $189,009.00 Third Escrow WEST TOWN (1st Party) Escrow funds for the
Agreement MB BOARDWALK (2nd demolition of existing
(Amendment) Party) structure or construction
Hicks (Escrow Agent)
02-20-2013 $45,086.66 Fourth WEST TOWN (1st Party) Escrow for payment of
Escrow MB BOARDWALK (2nd real and personal
Agreement Party) property taxes for the
Hicks (Escrow Agent) year 2012 on the
collateral.
07-01-2013 $1.58 Termination of WEST TOWN (1st Party) Terminated First
(remitted to Escrow MB BOARDWALK (2nd Escrow Agreement and
Ms. Mitchell) Agreement Party) Amendment to Escrow
Hicks (Escrow Agent) Agreement

Page 9 of 49
 43. On July 3, 2013, Mr. Hicks forwarded a letter and a check to Ms. Mitchell in the

amount of $1.58, which Mr. Hicks represented to be the entire remaining balance of the

escrow account, and Mr. Hicks indicated that the account had then been closed. This

letter is attached as “Exhibit 6.”

44. With the July 3, 2013 letter from Mr. Hicks, it became apparent that MB

BOARDWALK, could not meet requirements to demonstrate funds sufficient to make loan

payments as required under the USDA loan documents without the financial assistance

of the other members of the joint venture, i.e. R&R and the Family. To this end, Mr.

Skinner arranged for R&R to take out another loan through the SBA, this time for

$150,000, so that R&R would provide the funds to MB BOARDWALK. All the members of

the Family were involved and approved of this transaction.

45. Mr. Hicks was aware of the plan to have R&R take out this additional loan to fund

MB BOARDWALK’s $3.6M loan payments, and Mr. Hicks never explained or advised that

the terms of such a loan should be memorialized in writing.

46. Mr. Hicks never discussed potential conflicts of interest or waiver of potential

conflict of interest with Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Mitchell, Jack Rabon and Peggy, R&R, or MB

BOARDWALK at any time, and therefore never obtained any of their informed consents to

waive any conflicts of interest related to his joint and simultaneous representation of all

the individuals and entities.

47. Per the requirements of Mr. Skinner and W EST TOWN, and in order for R&R to get

the $150,000 SBA loan to fund MB BOARDWALK’s payments for the USDA loan, Mr. Hicks

prepared a new set of By-Laws for R&R. The Family adopted these new By-Laws on June

25, 2013, in Mr. Hicks’ office.

Page 10 of 49
 48. The By-Laws were severely lacking and provided no protection for Peggy in the

event of financial catastrophe for either MB BOARDWALK or R&R; and no protection was

provided for Peggy in the event of intrafamily discord or the typical problems that

accompany any business enterprise, especially one where assets from one business are

used to cross-collateralize loans for another business.

The Beginning of Financial Troubles and

the Entry of Ms. Golding and Mr. Jefferies

49. By April of 2014, money within MB BOARDWALK and R&R had become scarce.

R&R had gotten behind in payments on an older mortgage, and TD Bank filed for

foreclosure against property owned by R&R in the case styled: TD BANK, et al v. RABON

& RABON, INC., 2014-CP-26-02396 (“the TD Case”).

50. In August of 2014, the $3.6M loan was not incurably in default, as W EST TOWN

indicated that it would have allowed a six-month grace period on missed payments. In

July and August of 2014, Jack Rabon, Peggy Rabon, and R&R retained Ms. Golding to

investigate and pursue any viable claims against Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Mitchell, and MB

Boardwalk. Peggy withdrew approximately $70,000.00 to pay the initial retainer to hire

Ms. Golding.

51. Throughout 2014 and 2015, Ms. Mitchell contacted Mr. Hicks several times in

2015 to ask if there were any funds remaining in the escrow account. By this time, the

law firm that Mr. Hicks worked at changed names, from Rice, MacDonald & Hicks, P.A.,

to simply MacDonald & Hicks, P.A.

52. MacDonald & Hicks, P.A. is either a mere continuation of Rice, MacDonald &

Hicks, P.A., or at least as to these Plaintiffs; or MacDonald & Hicks, P.A. agreed to

Page 11 of 49
assume the liabilities of Rice, MacDonald & Hicks, P.A., or at least as to these Plaintiffs;

or the circumstances surrounding the creation of MacDonald & Hicks, P.A. or the

representations provided to these Plaintiffs support a finding of consolidation or merger

of MacDonald & Hicks, P.A. and Rice, MacDonald & Hicks, P.A.

53. At the time of the 2014 and 2015 inquiries by Ms. Mitchell, the Escrow Agreements

had been terminated, and Mr. Hicks continued to represent that the only funds remaining,

in an amount of $1.58, had been refunded and that no funds remained in the escrow

accounts. This representation was false and as shown later in this pleading, in August

2015, Mr. Hicks disclosed to Ms. Mitchell that there had been $69,574.76 in his escrow

account the entire time.

54. The timing of Mr. Hicks seemingly misplacing $69,574.76 in a highly regulated

lawyer trust account supports the inference that Mr. Hicks made representations, at the

direction of Ms. Golding or in furtherance of a common scheme, to prevent MB Boardwalk

from meeting its obligations under the USDA loan.

55. At no point did Ms. Golding recognize or advise her clients that the Family and the

respective businesses were a joint venture, mutually dependent upon one another for the

collective benefit of all members.

56. At the time Ms. Golding agreed to represent Jack Rabon, Peggy Rabon, and R&R,

the single largest liability of all involved was the $3.6 million USDA loan with West Town

Bank.

57. At the time Ms. Golding agreed to represent Jack Rabon, Peggy Rabon, and R&R,

Mr. Jefferies was not a lawyer and Ms. Golding did not know how USDA loans worked.

Page 12 of 49
 58. Ms. Golding filed a lawsuit on behalf of Jack Rabon and Peggy against Ms.

Mitchell, and Mr. Mitchell in the matter styled: Jack I. Rabon and Peggy Jo Rabon v. Karon

Mitchell, Kyle Mitchell, and MB BOARDWALK ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, 2014-CP-26-05740,

alleging that Ms. Mitchell and Mr. Mitchell essentially stole funds from MB BOARDWALK,

and that Ms. Mitchell and Mr. Mitchell were unable to pay the $3.6M loan and the $300k

loan because they had converted company funds for their personal use.

59. In this lawsuit, the listed Plaintiffs sued the Mitchells in a derivative capacity to

recover assets of MB Boardwalk.

60. This lawsuit was contrived, unfounded in fact, instigated to gain a collateral

advantage for Jack only, and not in the best interests of Peggy individually, nor for Peggy

as a stakeholder in MB BOARDWALK and R&R.

61. Any competent review of the business records and transactions of R&R, MB

Boardwalk, and the Family members would reveal the fundamental nature of the family

businesses as a joint venture and demonstrate that the monies alleged to be “stolen” by

the Mitchells were actually used to keep the businesses afloat.

62. Peggy passed away on August 31, 2014. Jack Rabon opened her estate for

probate thereafter, as described in the matter styled: In Re Peggy Jo Hardee Rabon,

2014-ES-26-01933 (“the Estate Case”). Jack Rabon was named as personal

representative of the Estate, thus giving rise to fiduciary duties that Jack Rabon now owed

to the Estate. Those fiduciary duties included the duty to manage the Estate assets,

including Peggy’s interests in MB BOARDWALK and R&R, which consisted wholly of

Peggy’s percentage ownership in the land owned by each entity.

Page 13 of 49
 63. Ms. Golding filed an Amended Complaint in the 2014-CP-26-05740 matter,

acknowledging that Peggy’s 25% share of MB BOARDWALK was part of Peggy’s Estate to

be probated, and that the members of MB BOARDWALK owed fiduciary duties to one

another.

64. MB BOARDWALK and R&R did not make a September 2014 payment to W EST TOWN

because the funds needed to make the payment were either paid to Ms. Golding or

wrongfully withheld by Mr. Hicks.

Jack Rabon Usurps Control with the Assistance of his lawyers

65. On October 1, 2014, Ms. Golding conducted a shareholders meeting during which

Jack Rabon purported to vote Peggy’s shares, and Jack Rabon’s proxy was used to vote

Jack Rabon’s personal shares of R&R to appoint Jack Rabon as President and Vice

President and voted to appoint Jack Rabon’s wife, Nichole Rabon, as Secretary and

Treasurer of R&R.

66. This meeting and, in particular, Mr. Rabon’s self-dealing in electing himself and

his wife as the only officers of the corporation was damaging to Peggy’s individual

interests and for Peggy’s interests as a stakeholder in MB BOARDWALK and R&R.

67. Under Peggy’s will, Mr. Rabon would not have possessed enough shares in R&R

to seize control of R&R, as he would only own 53% of the outstanding shares. The only

way Mr. Rabon mustered the control of at least 66% of the outstanding shares was

through his abuse of power as personal representative of the Estate.

68. The Mitchells and their attorney were present at the October 1, 2014 shareholders

meeting and objected to the proceedings on several grounds. The Mitchells, who were

the officers of the corporation prior to the election of Jack Rabon and his wife, specifically

Page 14 of 49
objected to the By-Laws being used and declared that the purported election was void.

See Transcript of 1/01/2014 Meeting, attached as “Exhibit 7.”

69. Despite the objections of the Mitchells and their attorneys, Ms. Golding drafted two

affidavits for Jack Rabon and Nicole Rabon that averred under oath that no current or

former officer objected to their election as President, Vice-President, Secretary and

Treasurer. These affidavits were notarized by the legal assistant of Ms. Golding and

presented to the Horry County Magistrate’s Court less than two weeks after the October

1, 2014 Shareholders Meeting. See Magistrate Affidavits, attached as “Exhibit 8.”

70. In November 2014, Ms. Mitchell contacted Riddick Skinner about modifying the

MB Boardwalk loan to avoid foreclosure and provide relief with regard to the debt service

payments due under the original loan. Riddick Skinner stated that he was glad to begin

the modification process and would work with Ms. Mitchell to keep the loan out of

foreclosure.

71. Riddick Skinner indicated that he could not initiate the modification process without

the written permission of Jack Rabon.

72. In September of 2018, Mr. Braddock, as Personal Representative of the Estate,

discovered that in December of 2014 and again in December of 2015, Jack Rabon, who

relied on the bad advice of Ms. Golding and Mr. Jefferies, refused to sign the consent for

a modification of the West Town loan, thereby guaranteeing the foreclosure process

would begin with regards to the MB Boardwalk loan for which Peggy was a personal

guarantor.

Page 15 of 49
 73. In May 2015, WEST TOWN foreclosed on the $3.6M Loan and the $300k Loan, in

the matter styled WEST TOWN SAVINGS BANK N /K /A WEST TOWN BANK & TRUST v.

BOARDWALK ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, et al., 2015-CP-26-02779.

The Open and Obvious Conflict

74. Throughout the joint representation of Jack Rabon, the Estate and R&R, Ms.

Golding and Mr. Jefferies acted to protect the interests of Jack Rabon at the expense of

the Estate, MB Boardwalk and R&R.

75. Throughout the joint representation of Jack Rabon, the Estate and R&R, Mr.

Jefferies and Ms. Golding acted to achieve the ultimate goal of obtaining a cash buyout

for Jack Rabon and completely disregarded the impending judgments that would result

from the foreclosure of the West Town loan.

76. At no time did Mr. Jefferies or Ms. Golding advise any of their joint clients that

failure to remedy the West Town default was likely to result in a substantial judgment

against those clients due to the personal guarantees.

77. Ms. Golding or Mr. Jefferies actually advised Jack Rabon to take action to prohibit

and/or hinder Ms. Mitchell’s ability to successfully operate and derive income from Shark

Attack.

78. Ms. Golding or Mr. Jefferies assisted Jack Rabon in disabling the equipment at

Shark Attack to delay its opening and damage the ability of MB Boardwalk to pay its debts.

79. During the end of 2014 and early 2015, the Family engaged in settlement

negotiations through their respective attorneys. The primary focus of Ms. Golding or Mr.

Jefferies was to obtain the release of Jack Rabon from all debts and personal guarantees

in addition to a payment of $500,000.00.

Page 16 of 49
 80. At no time did Ms. Golding or Mr. Jefferies demand any concessions or

consideration of R&R or the Estate beyond the removal of the Estate from the personal

guarantees on the various loans.

81. In December 2014, Ms. Golding or Mr. Jefferies submitted a demand for

settlement that required the Estate and Jack Rabon to be released from the personal

guarantees on the various loans and a payment of $500,000.00 to Jack Rabon. The

demand would encumber the remaining R&R Properties with mortgages in favor of Jack

Rabon and obligate R&R to pay Jack Rabon a monthly payment of over $3000.00.

Moreover, the settlement demand purported to define the $500,000.00 as consideration

for the stock of R&R owned by Jack Rabon and the Estate. However, the demand

specifically allowed Jack Rabon to receive all of that consideration despite the fact that

he only owned less than 18% of the R&R stock being transferred. The remaining stock

being transferred was owned by the Estate. See Proposed Settlement Agreement,

attached as “Exhibit 9.”

The Sales of Sea Palms #1 and Sea Palms #2

82. In November 2014, a local investor made a written offer for the purchase of Sea

Palms #1 in the amount of $500,000.00. This offer was communicated to Ms. Golding,

but was never communicated to Jack Rabon or any shareholder of R&R.

83. Upon receipt of the $500,000.00 offer for the purchase of Sea Palms #1, Ms.

Golding called the real estate agency that procured the offer, Keystone Commercial

Realty, and demanded that they stop all attempts to pursue the marketing and sale of any

Sea Palms Property.

Page 17 of 49
 84. At the time the $500,000.00 offer was made for the purchase of Sea Palms #1,

the joint venture was in default on three loans: TD Bank, BB&T, and West Town Bank.

TD Bank was owed less than $300,000.00, BB&T only required a payment of

approximately $22,000.00 to be renewed and brought current, and West Town required

a payment of only $78,000.00 to be made current with no payments due for at least 9

months.

85. If Sea Palms #1 had been sold for $500,000.00, all three loans would have been

either paid off or brought current before the end of 2014, avoiding three foreclosure

lawsuits against the joint venture, and leaving at least $100,000.00 in immediate cash for

the Corporation and possibly its shareholders.

86. Henrietta Golding told Ross “Buddy” Lindsay, the attorney for Karon and Kyle

Mitchell, that the $500,000.00 offer was rejected because they had “a better offer.”

87. In February 2015, unbeknownst to Ms. Mitchell and Mr. Mitchell at the time, Jack

Rabon consummated a sale where R&R sold Sea Palms #1 to Shai David and Beth David

for $242,000.00. This sale by Jack Rabon ignored the fact that the Estate was not yet

probated; was for less than half the price offered in November 2014, ignored Peggy’s

liability for each personal guaranty signed by Peggy, which was now a consideration for

the Estate; occurred even though the Estate owned 61% of the shares of R&R; occurred

without Probate Court approval or knowledge even though this sale liquidated a

significant asset of the Estate; was detrimental to the interests of all members of MB

BOARDWALK; and also endangered other assets of the Estate held in title by MB

BOARDWALK.

Page 18 of 49
 88. This sale was damaging to Peggy’s individual interests and for Peggy’s interests

as a stakeholder in MB BOARDWALK and R&R.

89. This sale was damaging to R&R as it disposed of an asset for less than half its

market value.

90. In March of 2015 and still unbeknownst to Ms. Mitchell and Mr. Mitchell at the time,

Jack Rabon consummated a sale where R&R sold Sea Palms #2 to Shai David and Beth

David for $175,000.00, which was a grossly undervalued sale price. This sale was

damaging and against the best interests of the Estate, R&R, creditors of the Estate, and

MB BOARDWALK. This sale by Jack Rabon (later discovered to be orchestrated by Mr.

Jefferies) ignored the fact that the Estate was not yet probated; ignored the Estate’s

liability for Peggy’s liability for each personal guaranty signed by Peggy, which was now

a consideration for the Estate; occurred even though the Estate owned shares of R&R;

occurred without Probate Court approval or knowledge even though this sale liquidated

a significant asset of the Estate; was detrimental to the interests of MB BOARDWALK; and

also endangered other assets of the Estate held in title by MB BOARDWALK.

91. The sales of Sea Palms #1 and Sea Palms #2 were extraordinary corporate acts

that required shareholder approval and the Probate Court’s approval because the sales

implicated assets of the Estate.

92. Jack Rabon, with the knowledge and assistance of Mr. Jefferies, structured the

sales of Sea Palms #1 and Sea Palms #2 to suggest that the sales were only for a total

of $417,000.00 for both hotels. In reality, Mr. Shai David agreed to pay Jack Rabon

additional funds outside of the closing after the property was deeded to Mr. David and the

mortgage had been satisfied, in the amount of $735,000.00. Jack Rabon’s actions were

Page 19 of 49
in breach of his fiduciary duties to the Estate and its beneficiaries, Ms. Mitchell, Mr.

Mitchell; MB BOARDWALK, and R&R.

93. The sales of Sea Palms #1 and Sea Palms #2 were against the interests of the

entities and therefore diminished the value of the Estate’s interest in the entities; and

should have been used to fund restructuring of the WEST TOWN Loan, however, based on

negligent advice of Mr. Jefferies and Ms. Golding, the proceeds of the sales were

transferred directly to Ms. Golding’s trust account to protect its fees generated by Mr.

Jefferies and Ms. Golding, as security for future fees to be generated by the two; and as

distributions to Jack Rabon as an individual and outside of the knowledge of the Probate

Court.

94. Later in 2015, Jack Rabon filed an inventory and appraisal that, upon information

and belief, makes no reference to the sale of Sea Palms #1 or Sea Palms #2.

Misrepresentations to Tribunals

95. In 2015, Ms. Mitchell and Mr. Mitchell filed a lawsuit styled Mitchell, Mitchell and

MB BOARDWALK, LLC v. RABON & RABON, Inc., et al., 2015-CP-26-01628, against Jack

Rabon and R&R.

96. An Amended Petition in the Estate case was filed requesting that Jack Rabon be

removed as the PR, citing Jack Rabon’s erratic behavior, breaches of fiduciary duties,

and believed fraud, waste, and abuse of assets of R&R and the Estate. At that time, Ms.

Mitchell and Mr. Mitchell were unaware of the extent Mr. Jefferies’ and Ms. Golding’s

involvement in Jack Rabon’s various possible breaches of fiduciary duties.

97. Ms. Golding and Mr. Jefferies filed an Answer to the Amended Petition in the

Estate case, and the civil case 2015-CP-26-01628, on behalf of Jack Rabon. These

Page 20 of 49
Answers acknowledged the sales of Sea Palms #1 and Sea Palms #2. Most important,

these Answers acknowledged that the sales generated “approximately $120,000.00” in

cash and alleged that the funds were used “to preserve other Rabon & Rabon assets.”

98. The actual amount received Ms. Golding or Mr. Jefferies was $128,289.57. Both

Answers are noticeably silent concerning not applying the proceeds of the sales to protect

the assets of MB BOARDWALK, despite those being the most significant asset of the joint

venture and the Estate, and despite the existence of Peggy’s personal guaranty which

was part of the Estate. R&R’S assets, although allegedly preserved, were never identified.

99. At the time that Ms. Golding and Mr. Jefferies represented that the “$120,000.00”

was used to preserve assets of R&R, they held more than $123,000.00 of R&R funds in

a trust account.

100. Ms. Golding or Mr. Jefferies continued to hold the proceeds from the Sea Palms

#2 sale for nearly 2 years. During that time, only $39,299.52 the $128,289.57 was spent

towards expenses for the company. The rest of the funds were either paid to McNair Law

Firm or Nicole Rabon.

101. The Sale of Sea Palms #2 generated cash that the Estate could claim in the

approximate amount of $78,256.64, or the Estate’s 61% of the $128,289.57 that R&R

realized from the land sale. In the Answer to the Probate Petition, Ms. Golding and Mr.

Jefferies asserted that:

At the time Personal Representative was appointed Personal

Representative of the Estate, and at all times since, the Estate has had less
than $20,000 in liquid assets.

Page 21 of 49
 102. The $128,289.57 should have been used to secure assets of R&R and MB

BOARDWALK by making payments on the various loans the joint venture had taken out on

respective properties, including the $3.6M Loan and the $300,000 Loan.

103. Upon information and belief, the proceeds of legitimate sales for Sea Palms #2

should have been applied to bring the WEST TOWN loans current to avoid the foreclosure

and eventual deficiency judgment, and also to prevent the loss of property owned by MB

BOARDWALK, R&R, and the Estate.

The “Discovery” of the Missing Escrow Money

104. On August 5, 2015, Mr. Hicks sent the email attached as “Exhibit 10,” which

indicated that, contrary to his July 3, 2013 letter, Mr. Hicks still retained $69,574.76 in

funds from the closings he supervised and conducted. Upon information and belief, Mr.

Hicks profited from interest earned from one or more of the deposits made pursuant to

the various escrow agreements.

105. This was the first confirmation that anyone received that Mr. Hicks was holding

funds in his law firm trust account.

106. Upon information and belief, the funds the funds described in “Exhibit 10” were

first deposited into accounts held by Mr. Hicks’ former law firm, Rice, MacDonald & Hicks,

P.A., and that this time or sometime shortly thereafter, those funds and all other funds

controlled by Mr. Hicks for the benefit of his clients, were transferred to accounts owned

and operated by MacDonald & Hicks, P.A.

107. This confirmation email came too late to help the Estate, MB BOARDWALK, and

R&R salvage the $3.6M Loan, the $300k Loan, or the properties of MB BOARDWALK and

R&R that served as collateral for these loans.

Page 22 of 49
 The September Conspiracy

108. In August 2015, negotiating on behalf of R&R, Jack Rabon reached an

agreement wherein R&R would sell Sea Palms #3 and the Brick House, to FRIENDS OF

LBS, INC.

109. Jack Rabon informed Mr. Jefferies and Ms. Golding of the terms of the

agreement with Friends of LBS, Inc. and told them that he wanted to conceal the sale

price of the Brick House from the banks.

110. Mr. Jefferies and Ms. Golding agreed to actively conceal the money received

from the sale of the Brick House from both BB&T and West Town Bank and acted

accordingly.

111. On August 20, 2015, on behalf of Jack Rabon, Ms. Golding petitioned the

Probate Court for approval of sales of Sea Palms #3 and the Brick House, to FRIENDS OF

LBS, INC., arguing that the sales were good for R&R, the Estate, its beneficiaries

(including Ms. Mitchell and Mr. Mitchell), and the creditors of the Estate, because the

sales, while not netting additional funds, would resolve outstanding mortgages on the

properties. These false representations and the actions themselves constituted a breach

of fiduciary duties owed by Jack Rabon to the Estate, MB BOARDWALK, and R&R. Mr.

Jefferies (and upon information and belief, Ms. Golding) knowingly aided and abetted

these breaches by Jack Rabon. Mr. Jefferies (and upon information and belief, Ms.

Golding) negligently pursued only the interests of Jack Rabon to the exclusion and

detriment of the Estate, MB BOARDWALK, and R&R.

Page 23 of 49
 112. Jack Rabon, by and through his attorneys Mr. Jefferies and Ms. Golding,

represented to the BB&T, West Town Bank, the Horry County Probate Court, Ms. Mitchell,

and Mr. Mitchell that Sea Palms #3 was being sold for a total sales price of $397,000.00.

113. Jack Rabon, by and through his attorneys Mr. Jefferies and Ms. Golding,

represented to the Horry County Probate Court, Ms. Mitchell, and Mr. Mitchell that the

Brick House was being sold for a total sales price of $145,000.00. The sale of the Brick

House was never disclosed to either BB&T or West Town Bank.

114. Unbeknownst to the Mitchells, BB&T, West Town Bank, or the closing attorney

Michelle Emery, Jack Rabon actually negotiated for the payment of an additional

$235,000.00 to be paid to him personally for the sale of Sea Palms #3. See Affidavit of

Jack Rabon, Paragraph 2, attached as “Exhibit 11.”

115. Michelle Cohen was the realtor involved in the deal and the primary

representative of Biderman. Ms. Cohen confirmed the conspiracy to pay the additional

illicit funds via affidavit. See Affidavit of Michelle Cohen, Paragraph 8, attached as

“Exhibit 12.”

116. Jacob Biderman, Atid Properties, LLC, Friends of LBS, LLC and Sarah Ginsberg

admitted in their joint answer to a separate lawsuit, 2017-CP-26-05757, that the additional

$235,000.00 was paid for Sea Palms #3 outside of the closing. See Answer of Biderman

Defendants, attached as “Exhibit 13.” Therefore, the payment of the illicit and

undisclosed $235,000.00 in funds is admitted by all of the parties directly involved.

117. On or about August 25, 2015, the Probate Court approved the August 5, 2015

sales contracts based on the misrepresentations made by Jack Rabon, Mr. Jefferies and

Ms. Golding.

Page 24 of 49
 118. Once the Probate Court issued the Order approving the sale of the real

properties, Biderman formed a new LLC, Atid Properties, LLC, for the sole purpose of

taking title to Sea Palms #3 and the Brick House.

119. Once the Probate Court issued the Order approving the sale of the real properties

Jack and Nicole Rabon formed a new LLC, Daisy Ridge, LLC, for the sole purpose of

receiving the illicit funds via wire from Biderman.

120. The formation of Daisy Ridge, LLC was suggested by Lane Mr. Jefferies who

referred the Rabons to Robert Frenz, an attorney in Columbia, for its formation.

121. Mr. Jefferies actually provided the fraudulent address for the Rabon’s to use as

the office for Daisy Ridge via text message. See Affidavit of Jack Rabon, paragraph 4,

attached as “Exhibit 11,” See text from Mr. Lane Jefferies to Jack Rabon on 8/26/2015,

attached as “Exhibit 14,” See Articles of Organization for Daisy Ridge, LLC; attached as

“Exhibit 15,” See Affidavit of Robert Frenz, attached as “Exhibit 16,”; and Affidavit of Dan

Joyner, attached as “Exhibit 17.”

122. After the LLCs were formed, the last piece of the conspiracy involved the money.

The money from Biderman would be transferred through three wire transfers. The first

wire consisted of the legitimate funds under the contracts and transferred to the Emery

Law Firm Trust Account from a newly created Bank of America bank account in the name

of Atid Properties, LLC. This total of $527,627.77 arrived no later than September 2,

2015. See the Emails from Michelle Cohen to Emery Law Firm, attached as “Exhibit 18.”

123. The second wire in the amount of $100,000.00 was wired from Biderman’s

account in Austria to a bank account in Chile in the name of Gabby Yosef, Michelle

Cohen’s brother. See Paragraph 11 of Michelle Cohen Affidavit, attached as “Exhibit 12,”

Page 25 of 49
and the email between Cohen and Biderman, attached as “Exhibit 19.” These funds were

withdrawn in cash to be handed to Jack Rabon and Lane Mr. Jefferies.

124. The third wire was in the amount of $135,000.00 and was transferred to a PNC

Bank Account in the name of Daisy Ridge, LLC. See the wire confirmation from Bank of

Austria, attached as “Exhibit 20.”

125. Due the anti-money laundering regulations in the U.S., the Daisy Ridge, LLC wire

had to go through a clearinghouse in New York and it did not arrive by September 3,

2015. This caused a ripple in the plan, resulting in Jack Rabon demanding that additional

security be paid for the illicit funds in the amount of $135,000.00.

126. Biderman wrote three checks for $45,000.00 each that were given to Mr. Jefferies

as security for the illicit funds. Mr. Jefferies signed a receipt for these three checks on

September 3, 2015. See the signed receipt by Mr. Jefferies, attached as “Exhibit 21.”

127. Mr. Jefferies asserted that these checks were for “security for the brick house,”

but this is false. All funds necessary for the closing of both properties arrived in the trust

account of the Emery Law Firm no later than September 2, 2018, the day before the three

checks were handed to Mr. Jefferies.

128. On September 2, 2015, Mr. Jefferies engaged in a series of texts with Jack and

Nicole Rabon. These texts are the proverbial “smoking gun” with regard to proving Mr.

Jefferies’ knowing and intentional involvement in the conspiracy. See the text from Mr.

Jefferies to Jack Rabon on 9/02/2015, attached as “Exhibit 22.” These texts

demonstrate Mr. Jefferies’ knowledge of both wires involving the illicit monies from

Biderman. The single text that conclusively proves Mr. Jefferies’ direct involvement reads

as follows:

Page 26 of 49
 “Damn. Jack, can you get Michelle on the phone and see if gabby got his
wire?”

129. The only way Gabby Yosef was involved with any party in general, or with the

real estate transaction on September 3, 2015 in particular, was through the wire of

$100,000.00 to his bank account in Chile. Mr. Jefferies knew about and, more

importantly, was concerned about “gabby’s wire.” This proves he knew about the illicit

funds and was an active participant in the conspiracy to defraud the banks, the Mitchells

the Estate, and R&R.

130. On September 3, 2015, Mr. Jefferies was picked up by Jack Rabon after the

closing was complete. See texts from Mr. Jefferies to Jack Rabon on 9/03/2015, attached

as “Exhibit 23.” They travelled to a parking lot off of 38th Avenue North in Myrtle Beach

to meet with Michelle Cohen and Gabby Yosef. Michelle then handed an envelope with

$50,000.00 cash inside. In front of Michelle Cohen, Jack Rabon immediately handed Mr.

Jefferies $10,000.00 of the cash. See paragraph 5 of Jack Rabon Affidavit, attached as

“Exhibit 11,” and paragraph 5-32 of Michelle Cohen Affidavit, attached as “Exhibit 12.”

131. Over the course of the next seven weeks, Jack Rabon withdrew nearly all of the

$135,000.00 from the Daisy Ridge, LLC account in cash. This excessive withdrawal

activity caused PNC Bank to initiate an investigation under its anti-money laundering

guidelines. One of the investigators working the file was named Jesse Cagle. Mr. Cagle

was an employee at the PNC branch where the Rabons opened the Daisy Ridge, LLC

account. Mr. Cagle spoke with Mr. Jefferies on the phone regarding the excessive

withdrawals by Jack Rabon. Mr. Jefferies told Mr. Cagle that he didn’t know why Jack

was withdrawing the cash. He suggested that Jack Rabon had a gambling problem or a

“girl on the side.” But it was his money and he should be able to do what he wanted with

Page 27 of 49
it. Mr. Jefferies actually billed the Rabon’s for this phone call in official billing records

issued to Jack Rabon. See Billing Record, attached as “Exhibit 24.”

The Mediation Agreement

132. In September-October of 2015, a mandatory mediation was scheduled in RABON

& RABON, Inc. v. Karon Mitchell and Kyle Mitchell, 2014-CP-26-07862.

133. The mediation resulted in a MEDIATION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (referred to

herein as “MSA”), which is attached as “Exhibit 25.”

134. The MSA purported to resolve not only the case that gave rise to the mediation,

but also RABON v. Michell, et al., 2014-CP-26-05740, Mitchell, et al. v. RABON, et al., 2015-

CP-26-01629, and “[a]ll existing probate cases” including but not limited to In Re Peggy

Jo Hardee Rabon, 2014-ES-26-01933, including claims that Jack Rabon should be

removed as the Personal Representative of Peggy’s Estate and Ms. Mitchell’s claims and

entitlement to a substantially larger portion of Peggy’s Estate.

135. The MSA outlined two alternative courses of action:

a. First, it required that within 30 days, Ms. Mitchell and Mr. Mitchell were to
obtain W EST TOWN’s release of its claims against R&R, Jack Rabon, and
the Rabon Estate from $4,000,000 of commercial debt, while also obtaining
similar releases from the USDA for the W EST TOWN loan, with Jack Rabon
keeping the whole of R&R for himself.

If Ms. Mitchell and Mr. Mitchell could not meet the terms of Part A, the MSA required

Part B:

b. Ms. Mitchell and Mr. Mitchell would give Jack Rabon their proxies
authorizing Jack Rabon to vote their shares of R&R and MB BOARDWALK,
and to sell the assets of R&R and MB BOARDWALK, under terms and
conditions as Jack Rabon would determine in his sole discretion.

136. The two scenarios presented in the MSA were only beneficial to the interests of

Jack Rabon and were detrimental and damaging to the interests of the Estate, MB

Page 28 of 49
BOARDWALK, and R&R. Mr. Jefferies (and upon information and belief, Ms. Golding)

negligently pursued only the interests of Jack Rabon to the exclusion and detriment of the

Estate, MB BOARDWALK, and R&R.

137. Jack Rabon never fully participated in efforts to work with W EST TOWN to modify

the loan. Mr. Jefferies contacted W EST TOWN’s lawyer a few times to discuss the

improbable possibility of a short sale of the property to avoid foreclosure. However,

despite knowing that documents were required from Jack Rabon for WEST TOWN to even

consider modification of the loan to benefit MB BOARDWALK, R&R, and Ms. Mitchell and

Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Jefferies waited until a few days before the final foreclosure hearing to

send the requested documents. Jack Rabon delayed the transmission of the documents.

These actions were breaches of fiduciary duties owed by Jack Rabon to the Estate and

its beneficiaries, Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Mitchell, MB BOARDWALK, and R&R. Upon information

and belief, Mr. Jefferies and Ms. Golding knew or should have known of these breaches

of fiduciary duties, and further acted to aid and abet the breaches of fiduciary duties by

Jack Rabon. Mr. Jefferies (and upon information and belief, Ms. Golding) negligently

pursued only the interests of Jack Rabon to the exclusion and detriment of the Estate,

MB BOARDWALK, and R&R in connection with the events surrounding the WEST TOWN loan

modification efforts.

138. Ms. Mitchell and Mr. Mitchell realized that they likely could not perform on Part A

of the Agreement.

139. Eventually, Ms. Mitchell and Mr. Mitchell filed a motion on their own behalf to set

aside the MSA, which Mr. Jefferies and Ms. Golding, acting only for the benefit of Jack

Rabon, individually, opposed.

Page 29 of 49
 140. Mr. Jefferies (and upon information and belief, Ms. Golding) negligently pursued

only the interests of Jack Rabon to the exclusion and detriment of the Estate, MB

BOARDWALK, and R&R in connection with efforts to enforce the MSA.

141. The trial court refused to set aside the MSA.

142. As illustrated in the emails attached as “Exhibit 26,” in May of 2016, Jack Rabon

withdrew $9,890.00 from a bank account owned by and containing funds belonging to MB

BOARDWALK. When questioned about the withdrawal, Mr. Jefferies acknowledged that the

withdrawal occurred but that Jack Rabon was entitled to a distribution, despite MB

BOARDWALK being in foreclosure and losing money, and despite the fact that the

withdrawal was in clear contradiction to the operating agreement for MB BOARDWALK.

These actions constituted a breach of the fiduciary duties that Jack Rabon owed to

Plaintiffs. Mr. Jefferies knowingly participated in these breaches and, in fact, Mr. Jefferies

aided, abetted, and defended these breaches as indicated in his emails attached as

Exhibit 26. Mr. Jefferies (and upon information and belief, Ms. Golding) negligently

pursued only the interests of Jack Rabon to the exclusion and detriment of the Estate,

MB BOARDWALK, and R&R in connection with this and other distributions to Jack Rabon,

Ms. Golding in her professional capacity, and Mr. Jefferies, individually but also in his

professional capacity.

143. As illustrated in the document attached as “Exhibit 27,” on October 10, 2016, the

Internal Revenue Service assed a tax lien on the Estate of Peggy Jo Rabon in the amount

of $36,699.71.

144. As illustrated in the bank statement attached as “Exhibit 28,” on May 3, 2017,

Ms. Golding or Mr. Jefferies issued a refund of trust funds to R&R, although those funds

Page 30 of 49
were wired directly to the personal bank account of Nicole Rabon. Upon information and

belief, neither Ms. Golding nor Mr. Jefferies informed the Probate Court about the return

of these funds but should have, as at least some of these funds belong to the Estate

through Peggy’s interest in R&R. Additionally, the funds should have been deposited in a

corporate account of R&R thereby additionally devaluing R&R and consequently the

Estate. The funds were deposited into Nicole Rabon’s account while, upon information

and belief, Jack Rabon, Ms. Golding and Mr. Jefferies knew of the existence of the

October 2017 IRS lien. Ms. Golding and Mr. Jefferies breached their duties to the Estate,

to R&R, and to Plaintiffs as business entities, members of business entities, and

beneficiaries to the Estate when they disbursed R&R funds to the personal bank account

of Nichole Rabon. In addition, without notifying and getting approval from the Probate

Court, such actions constituted a knowing participation by Ms. Golding and Mr. Jefferies

in Jack Rabon’s breach of his fiduciary duties as Personal Representative of the Estate.

145. On March 19, 2018, The Honorable Benjamin H. Culbertson entered the Order

attached as “Exhibit 29.” Among other findings, the order finds that fraud occurred when

Jack Rabon sold R&R properties, and that there was fraud in concealing the true

purchase price and/or value of the properties. Jack Rabon’s fraud in these land sales

constitute breaches of fiduciary duties owed to Plaintiffs. Upon information and belief, Mr.

Jefferies and Ms. Golding were directly involved in negotiating and consummating the

fraudulent land sales, and as such, Mr. Jefferies and Ms. Golding knowingly aided and

abetted and directly participated in these breaches of fiduciary duties, which caused harm

to Plaintiffs. Mr. Jefferies (and upon information and belief, Ms. Golding) negligently

pursued only the interests of Jack Rabon to the exclusion and detriment of the Estate,

Page 31 of 49
MB BOARDWALK, and R&R in connection with the fraud discussed in Judge Culbertson’s

Order.

146. By August 28, 2018, Jack Rabon provided counsel for Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Mitchell,

MB Boardwalk and R&R, an affidavit and in September of 2018, extensive

documentation, both of which illustrate an overarching conspiracy to render MB

Boardwalk insolvent.

147. By this time, the Estate was open; the foreclosure and deficiency judgment had

been finalized; yet the Estate has still, to date, not received its proportionate share of the

funds that Mr. Hicks holds, which would flow through MB Boardwalk or R&R to the Estate.

148. To make matters worse, upon information and belief, West Town Bank, holding

a valid deficiency judgment and as a party to the Escrow Agreements drafted by Mr.

Hicks, has not authorized release of the $69,574.76 that Mr. Hicks still holds.

149. By all appearances, Mr. Hicks held the $69,574.76 in funds in escrow, despite

duties to audit such accounts monthly and annually, in furtherance of a conspiracy to

render MB Boardwalk insolvent.

150. At all relevant times, Mr. Jefferies was employed by and working as an associate

lawyer under supervision of Ms. Golding.

151. At all relevant times, Mr. Jefferies was an agent of Ms. Golding.

152. The negligent acts, omissions, and liability of Ms. Golding includes the acts

and/or omissions of her agents, principals, employees and/or servants, including but not

limited to those by Mr. Jefferies, both directly and vicariously, pursuant to principles and

doctrines of non-delegable duty, corporate liability, apparent authority, agency, ostensible

agency, and/or respondeat superior.

Page 32 of 49
 153. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Ms. Golding acted by and

through her agents, including but not limited to Mr. Jefferies, who acted within the course

and scope of his respective employment and/or agency with all implied, inherent,

apparent and express authority to so bind his master and principal by his negligent, willful,

wanton and reckless actions and/or omissions making Ms. Golding vicariously liable for

same under the principles and doctrines of non-delegable duty, corporate liability,

apparent authority, agency, ostensible agency, and/or respondeat superior.

154. Mr. Jefferies acted through the time periods discussed in this Complaint to

generate lawyer’s fees to be paid to Ms. Golding by the Estate, R&R, and Jack Rabon.

155. Mr. Jefferies also acted through the time periods discussed in this Complaint to

generate payments made directly to Mr. Jefferies as an individual by Jack Rabon.

156. Mr. Jefferies and Ms. Golding acted through the time periods discussed in this

Complaint to aid and abet the multiple and various breaches of fiduciary duties owed by

Jack Rabon to Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Mitchell, MB BOARDWALK and/or R&R.

157. Through the time periods discussed in this Complaint, Mr. Jefferies (and upon

information and belief, Ms. Golding) negligently pursued only the interests of Jack Rabon

to the exclusion and detriment of the Estate, MB BOARDWALK, and R&R.

158. At the times complained of herein, Mr. Jefferies and Ms. Golding acted in their

own self-interest or outside the scope of their role as counsel to Jack Rabon, or acted

outside of the mandates of the South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407,

SCACR, and were therefore not engaged in professional activities.

159. Mr. Jefferies and Ms. Golding owed duties directly to MB BOARDWALK and R&R

as counsel for each entity to represent the respective interests of MB BOARDWALK and

Page 33 of 49
R&R to the exclusion of the personal interests of Jack Rabon as an individual. Mr.

Jefferies and Ms. Golding failed to do so as discussed in the events complained of herein;

and their respective or joint negligence in failing to meet their duties devalued each entity,

consequently devaluing the Estate.

160. Mr. Jefferies and Ms. Golding owed duties to Plaintiff to follow the South Carolina

Rules of Professional Conduct in their dealings when acting for the Estate, MB

BOARDWALK and R&R. Aiding and abetting Jack Rabon’s multiple breaches of fiduciary

duties violated such duties owed to Plaintiffs and directly and proximately caused Plaintiff

damages.

161. In summary, first, Mr. Hicks lost approximately $70,000 which would have staved

off foreclosure, and he did not find it until foreclosure had already become inevitable.

Then, Mr. Jefferies brokered a secret land sale of properties owned by R&R, the proceeds

of which if disclosed, would have also staved off foreclosure. Once foreclosure was

inevitable, Ms. Golding and Mr. Jefferies moved for court approval of two other grossly

undervalued land sale deals of property owned by R&R, which further harmed the

interests of Ms. Mitchell, Mr. Mitchell, MB BOARDWALK, and R&R. Then, Mr. Jefferies

negotiated the MSA that only advantaged Jack Rabon to the exclusion and detriment of

the interests of Estate, MB BOARDWALK and R&R; and then opposed setting aside the

MSA, to the exclusion and detriment of the interests of Estate, MB BOARDWALK and R&R.

Thereafter, Mr. Jefferies worked with Jack Rabon to ensure that, despite the obvious

benefit to R&R and MB BOARDWALK and consequently the Estate, the foreclosure

modification could not occur because W EST TOWN never timely received the documents

it requested from Jack Rabon. The results of the actions of Mr. Hicks, Mr. Jefferies and

Page 34 of 49
Ms. Golding were the foreclosure or sale of all properties owned by MB BOARDWALK and

R&R, lost potential for profit in the miniature golf business enterprise, lost funds due to

the Estate, MB BOARDWALK and R&R from the secret land sales, a deficiency judgment

as to the Estate, MB BOARDWALK and R&R, in an amount over $550,000, and no money,

property or benefit for the Estate, R&R, and/or MB BOARDWALK.

FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Civil Conspiracy)
(Mr. Hicks)

162. The foregoing factual and jurisdictional allegations are reiterated and realleged

as though set forth verbatim.

163. Outside of his duties and attorney-client relationship with Ms. Mitchell, Mr.

Mitchell, Peggy, Jack, MB Boardwalk and R&R, Mr. Hicks combined with Mr. Jefferies or

Ms. Golding for the purpose of injuring MB Boardwalk, generating special damage to the

Estate where Mr. Hicks, as a result of the conspiracy, caused the Estate to lose its

proportionate share of the funds wrongly held in his possession, the use of those funds,

and the Estate can never be closed until the disposition of the funds Mr. Hicks wrongfully

retained is resolved.

164. The claims of Peggy Rabon that she could have asserted against Mr. Hicks, had

she known of the conspiracy, are now claims rightfully belonging to and asserted by her

Estate.

165. As a direct and proximate result of Mr. Hicks’ participation in the civil conspiracy

with intent to harm MB Boardwalk, an asset of Peggy Rabon and so an Asset of the

Estate, the Estate has sustained special damage in the loss of funds that would have run

to the Estate, the loss of use of the funds that would have benefitted the Estate.

Page 35 of 49
 166. Mindful of the foregoing, the Estate hereby requests and demands judgment

against Mr. Hicks for its proportional amount of funds he holds that should have flowed

through MB Boardwalk; an appropriate amount as compensation for loss of use of those

funds; and an award of punitive damages in an appropriate amount as determined by the

trier of fact to both push Mr. Hicks and deter similar conduct on the part of Mr. Hicks and

others in the future.

FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Aiding and Abetting a Breach of Fiduciary Duty)
(Mr. Jefferies and Ms. Golding)

167. The foregoing factual and jurisdictional allegations are reiterated and realleged

as though set forth verbatim.

168. As described throughout this Complaint, Jack Rabon breached fiduciary duties

to R&R and the Estate of Peggy Jo Rabon.

169. As detailed above, Mr. Jefferies and Ms. Golding knowingly participated in Jack

Rabon’s various breaches of fiduciary duties owed to the Estate of Peggy Jo Rabon and

R&R, including but not limited to use of the Probate Court to seek approval for illicit or

undervalued land sales that devalued R&R and the Estate; and siphoning of Estate or

R&R funds to pay personal legal expenses of Jack Rabon.

170. Mr. Jefferies and Ms. Golding knowingly encouraged, aided and abetted Jack

Rabon’s breaches of fiduciary duties in such other particulars as the evidence in this case

may demonstrate.

171. As a direct and proximate result of Jack Rabon’s various breaches of fiduciary

duties and the knowing participation of Mr. Jefferies and Ms. Golding in those breaches,

Page 36 of 49
the Estate suffered actual, consequential and incidental damages in an amount to be

determined by the jury at the trial of this case.

172. In addition to the actual, consequential, and incidental damages suffered, the

Estate, through Mr. Braddock, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Peggy Jo

Rabon, is informed and believes that the Lawyers’ highly reckless, wanton, and

irresponsible conduct as specified in certain causes of action in this Complaint entitle the

Estate to an award of punitive damages.

173. WHEREFORE, the Estate through Mr. Braddock, as Personal Representative of

the Estate of Peggy Jo Rabon, prays for judgment on this cause of action against the Mr.

Jefferies and Ms. Golding for actual, special, consequential, and incidental damages

suffered, pre-judgment interest, punitive damages, and such other relief as the Court may

deem reasonable and proper.

FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of Fiduciary Duty)
(As to Mr. Jefferies and Ms. Golding)
(On behalf of the Personal Representative)

174. The foregoing factual and jurisdictional allegations are reiterated and realleged

as though set forth verbatim.

175. At all relevant times, a client-lawyer relationship existed between Mr. Jefferies

and Ms. Golding as the lawyers, and the Personal Representative of the Estate as the

client.

176. Mr. Jefferies and Ms. Golding had and owed fiduciary duties to the Personal

Representative of the Estate, including the duty of loyalty, as well as the duty to act single-

mindedly in preserving, protecting and advancing the rights and interests of the Estate.

177. The Lawyers failed to meet the minimum standard of conduct and thereby

Page 37 of 49
breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty when the Lawyers did not remain loyal to the

Estate with regard to ensuring that funds were properly distributed to the Estate instead

of improperly being distributed to the Lawyers.

178. The Lawyers failed to meet the minimum standard of conduct and thereby

breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty when the Lawyers agreed to distribute funds

directly to Jack Rabon and Mr. Jefferies rather than paying those funds into the Estate.

179. The Lawyers failed to meet the minimum standard of conduct and thereby

breached their fiduciary duties to the Estate in such other particulars as the evidence in

this case may demonstrate.

180. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable cause of the Lawyers’ actions and

inactions breaching their fiduciary duties, the Estate sustained actual damages, is entitled

to pre-judgment interest, and incidental damages, all in an amount to be more specifically

proven at trial.

181. Based on the Lawyers’ clear and serious breach of their fiduciary duties of

loyalty, the Lawyers should be ordered to disgorge any benefit obtained.

182. Based on the Lawyer’s clear and serious breach of their fiduciary duties of

loyalty, punitive damages should be awarded in an amount determined by the jury at the

trial of this case.

183. WHEREFORE, the Estate, prays for judgment on this cause of action against

the Lawyers for actual, special, consequential, and incidental damages suffered, pre-

judgment interest, legal fees, punitive damages, and such other relief as the Court may

deem reasonable and proper.

FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Legal Professional Negligence)

Page 38 of 49
 (Ms. Golding and Mr. Jefferies)
(On behalf of the Personal Representative)

184. The foregoing factual and jurisdictional allegations are reiterated and realleged

as though set forth verbatim.

185. At all relevant times, a client-lawyer relationship existed between Ms. Golding

and Mr. Jefferies as the lawyers for the Personal Representative of the Estate of Peggy

Jo Rabon, as client.

186. The scope of Ms. Golding’s and Mr. Jefferies representation included:

a. Extending all offers to purchase R&R and MB Boardwalk properties to the

Personal Representative;

b. Providing appropriate, prudent and proper advice to the Personal Representative

regarding decisions as to whether to participate in the refinance of properties

owned by MB Boardwalk and R&R that were subject to West Town Bank’s

mortgage;

c. Providing appropriate, prudent and proper advice to the Personal Representative

regarding the maintenance and preservation of property in which the Estate had

an interest, including the corporations R&R and MB Boardwalk and the

respective properties held by such corporations.

187. Ms. Golding and Mr. Jefferies failed to meet the minimum standard of care

thereby breaching professional duties to the Personal Representative and otherwise

acted in a negligent manner by, among other things:

a. Failing to advise the Personal Representative and President of R&R of an offer

to purchase R&R real estate, which if transmitted, should have been accepted

and should have generated sorely needed cash to save other R&R and MB

Page 39 of 49
 Boardwalk properties; or should have generated substantial cash that should

have been included in the assets of the Estate based on Peggy Jo Rabon’s

ownership interest in said entities at the time of her death;

b. Failing to resolve conflicts, seek conflict waivers, or otherwise advise the

Personal Representative in a manner that favored the interests of the Personal

Representative to promote, maintain and preserve the assets of R&R and the

Estate, instead favoring the personal interests of Jack Rabon in advice given;

c. Failing to provide appropriate, prudent and proper advice to the Personal

Representative and President of R&R regarding the maintenance and

preservation of property in which the Estate had an interest, including the

corporations R&R and MB Boardwalk and the respective properties held by such

corporations;

d. Failing to properly account for or apply funds trusted within their care, disbursing

such funds to Ms. Golding in her professional capacity, or Mr. Jefferies in his

professional capacity or as an individual; or Jack Rabon and Nicole Rabon

personally, instead of depositing such funds into the Estate or an account owned

by R&R;

e. Failing to meet the minimum standard of care thereby breaching professional

duties to the Personal Representative and R&R by other such particulars as the

evidence in this case may demonstrate.

188. As a direct and proximate result of Ms. Golding’s and Mrs. Jefferies’ breaches of

professional duties by the actions and omissions specified in this Complaint and other

actions and omissions known to Ms. Golding and Mr. Jefferies and expected to be

Page 40 of 49
uncovered in discovery of this matter, Plaintiffs suffered actual, consequential and

incidental damages in an amount to be determined by the jury at the trial of this case.

FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Legal Professional Negligence)
(Ms. Golding and Mr. Jefferies)
(On behalf of MB Boardwalk and R&R)

189. The foregoing factual and jurisdictional allegations are reiterated and realleged

as though set forth verbatim.

190. At all relevant times, a client-lawyer relationship existed between Ms. Golding

and Mr. Jefferies as the lawyers and R&R, as the client.

191. MB Boardwalk, R&R, and the members of each and both were in a joint venture.

192. The client-lawyer relationship and the duties that come with that relationship

extended to MB Boardwalk through the client-lawyer relationship of Ms. Golding and Mr.

Jefferies and R&R.

193. In the alternative, at all relevant times, a client-lawyer relationship also existed

between Ms. Golding and Mr. Jefferies as the lawyers and MB Boardwalk, as the client.

194. The scope of Ms. Golding’s and Mr. Jefferies representation included:

a. Extending all offers to purchase R&R and MB Boardwalk properties to R&R and

MB Boardwalk, or the members of R&R and MB Boardwalk;

b. Providing appropriate, prudent and proper advice to R&R and MB Boardwalk, or

the members of R&R and MB Boardwalk, regarding decisions as to whether to

participate in the refinance of properties owned by MB Boardwalk and R&R that

were subject to West Town Bank’s mortgage;

c. Providing appropriate, prudent and proper advice to R&R and MB Boardwalk or

the members of R&R and MB Boardwalk, regarding the maintenance and

Page 41 of 49
 preservation of all property owned by each and both entities.

195. Ms. Golding and Mr. Jefferies failed to meet the minimum standard of care

thereby breaching professional duties to R&R and MB Boardwalk, or the members of

R&R and MB Boardwalk, and otherwise acted in a negligent manner by, among other

things:

d. Failing to advise R&R and MB Boardwalk, or the members of R&R and MB

Boardwalk, of an offer to purchase R&R real estate, which if transmitted, should

have been accepted and should have generated sorely needed cash to save

other R&R and MB Boardwalk properties; or should have generated substantial

cash that should have been available for distribution to R&R and MB Boardwalk,

or the members of R&R and MB Boardwalk;

e. Failing to resolve conflicts, seek conflict waivers, or otherwise advise R&R and

MB Boardwalk, or the members of R&R and MB Boardwalk, in a manner that

favored the interests of R&R and MB Boardwalk, or the members of R&R and

MB Boardwalk, to promote, maintain and preserve the assets of R&R and MB

Boardwalk, instead favoring the personal interests of Jack Rabon in advice given;

f. Failing to provide appropriate, prudent and proper advice to R&R and MB

Boardwalk, or the members of R&R and MB Boardwalk, regarding the

maintenance and preservation of property owned by R&R and MB Boardwalk;

g. Failing to properly account for or apply funds trusted within their care, disbursing

such funds to Ms. Golding in her professional capacity, or Mr. Jefferies in his

professional capacity or as an individual; or Jack Rabon and Nicole Rabon

personally, instead of distributing such funds to R&R and MB Boardwalk, or the

Page 42 of 49
 members of R&R and MB Boardwalk;

h. Failing to meet the minimum standard of care thereby breaching professional

duties to R&R and MB Boardwalk, or the members of R&R and MB Boardwalk,

by other such particulars as the evidence in this case may demonstrate.

196. As a direct and proximate result of Ms. Golding’s and Mrs. Jefferies’ breaches of

professional duties by the actions and omissions specified in this Complaint and other

actions and omissions known to Ms. Golding and Mr. Jefferies and expected to be

uncovered in discovery of this matter, Plaintiffs suffered actual, consequential and

incidental damages in an amount to be determined by the jury at the trial of this case.

197. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment on this cause of action against the

Lawyers for actual, special, consequential, and incidental damages suffered, pre-

judgment interest, legal fees, punitive damages, and such other relief as the Court may

deem reasonable and proper.

FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of Fiduciary Duty)
(As to Mr. Jefferies and Ms. Golding)
(On behalf of R&R and MB Boardwalk)

198. The foregoing factual and jurisdictional allegations are reiterated and realleged

as though set forth verbatim.

199. At all relevant times, a client-lawyer relationship existed between Ms. Golding

and Mr. Jefferies as the lawyers and R&R, as the client.

200. MB Boardwalk, R&R, and the members of each and both were in a joint venture.

201. The client-lawyer relationship and the duties that come with that relationship

extended to MB Boardwalk through the client-lawyer relationship of Ms. Golding and Mr.

Jefferies and R&R.

Page 43 of 49
 202. In the alternative, at all relevant times, a client-lawyer relationship also existed

between Ms. Golding and Mr. Jefferies as the lawyers and MB Boardwalk, as the client.

203. Mr. Jefferies and Ms. Golding had and owed fiduciary duties to R&R and MB

Boardwalk, or the members of R&R and MB Boardwalk, including the duty of loyalty, as

well as the duty to act single-mindedly in preserving, protecting and advancing the rights

and interests of to R&R and MB Boardwalk, or the members of R&R and MB Boardwalk.

204. The Lawyers failed to meet the minimum standard of conduct and thereby

breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty when the Lawyers did not remain loyal to R&R

and MB Boardwalk, or the members of R&R and MB Boardwalk; with regard to ensuring

that funds were properly distributed to R&R and MB Boardwalk, or the members of R&R

and MB Boardwalk instead of improperly being distributed to the Lawyers.

205. The Lawyers failed to meet the minimum standard of conduct and thereby

breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty when the Lawyers agreed to distribute funds

directly to Jack Rabon and Mr. Jefferies rather than paying those funds to R&R and MB

Boardwalk, or the members of R&R and MB Boardwalk.

206. The Lawyers failed to meet the minimum standard of conduct and thereby

breached their fiduciary duties to R&R and MB Boardwalk, or the members of R&R and

MB Boardwalk, in such other particulars as the evidence in this case may demonstrate.

207. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable cause of the Lawyers’ actions and

inactions breaching their fiduciary duties, R&R and MB Boardwalk, or the members of

R&R and MB Boardwalk, sustained actual damages, is entitled to pre-judgment interest,

and incidental damages, all in an amount to be more specifically proven at trial.

208. Based on the Lawyers’ clear and serious breach of their fiduciary duties of

Page 44 of 49
loyalty, the Lawyers should be ordered to disgorge any benefit obtained.

209. Based on the Lawyer’s clear and serious breach of their fiduciary duties of

loyalty, punitive damages should be awarded in an amount determined by the jury at the

trial of this case.

210. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment on this cause of action against the

Lawyers for actual, special, consequential, and incidental damages suffered, pre-

judgment interest, legal fees, punitive damages, and such other relief as the Court may

deem reasonable and proper.

FOR A SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of Contract Against MCNAIR)

211. The foregoing factual and jurisdictional allegations are reiterated and realleged

as though set forth verbatim.

212. MCNAIR entered into a contract or several contracts with Plaintiffs, under the

terms of which McNair agreed and contracted to provide competent and prudent legal

services.

213. Plaintiffs fulfilled all necessary preconditions, if any, of the one or several

contracts with McNair.

214. MCNAIR breached the Contract by failing to provide competent and prudent legal

services; failing to protect and accurately account for funds belonging to Plaintiffs, failing

to implement or enforce corporate policies to protect Plaintiffs from the damages

complained of herein, and other such failures that were explicit or implicit terms of the

contract or contracts between these Plaintiffs and McNair.

215. As a direct and proximate result of MCNAIR’S breaches of contractual duties,

Plaintiffs sustained actual, consequential and incidental damages in an amount to be

Page 45 of 49
determined by the jury at the trial of this case.

216. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment on this cause of action against the

Lawyers for actual, special, consequential, and incidental damages suffered, pre-

judgment interest, legal fees, and such other relief as the Court may deem reasonable

and proper.

FOR AN EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Negligent Supervision - against MCNAIR)

217. The foregoing factual and jurisdictional allegations are reiterated and realleged

as though set forth verbatim.

218. At all times herein, Jefferies and Golding were employed by McNair.

219. Given McNair’s position as employer of a relatively inexperienced attorney,

Defendant had a duty of reasonably supervising and directing the actions of Jefferies.

220. Given Golding’s position as the senior lawyer, she had a duty to reasonably

supervise and direct the actions of Jefferies. Golding’s actions and/or failures in these

regards are the actions and/or failures of McNair.

221. Jefferies or Golding or both perpetrated the wrongs, acts and omissions

attributed to each and both of them throughout this Complaint.

222. McNair or Golding or both failed to prevent Jefferies from perpetrating the

wrongs, acts and omissions attributed to him throughout this Complaint.

223. McNair was and is under a duty to exercise care to control Jefferies or Golding

or both while each or both were acting outside the scope of employment; including a duty

to exercise care and control over the lawyer trust account that Jefferies or Golding or both

utilized to perpetrate the wrongs discussed throughout this Complaint; and a duty to

monitor or act on the actions taken by Jefferies or Golding or both as reflected in the

Page 46 of 49
correspondence, other documents and time and billing information Jefferies or Golding of

both recorded and submitted through McNair for approval and issuance to the Estate,

Jack Rabon or R&R.

224. Jefferies or Golding or both intentionally harmed Plaintiffs - each or all - when

upon the premises of McNair; or when using chattel of McNair, where McNair knew or

had reason to know that it could control Jefferies or Golding or both, and McNair knew or

should have known of the necessity and opportunity for exercising such control.

225. As a direct and proximate result of McNair’s or Golding’s negligence in

supervising Jefferies to correct or prevent Jefferies from perpetrating the wrongs, acts

and omissions attributed to him throughout this Complaint, and other actions and

omissions known to Ms. Golding and Mr. Jefferies and expected to be uncovered in

discovery of this matter, Plaintiffs suffered actual, consequential and incidental damages

in an amount to be determined by the jury at the trial of this case.

226. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment on this cause of action McNair for

actual, special, consequential, and incidental damages suffered, pre-judgment interest,

legal fees, punitive damages, and such other relief as the Court may deem reasonable

and proper.

TRIAL BY JURY

227. Plaintiffs request and demand a trial by jury on all claims so triable.

EXPERT AFFIDAVIT

228. Pursuant to S.C. CODE ANN. § 15-36-100(B), because this Complaint is being

filed when there is a good faith basis to believe the expiration of the statute of limitations

is imminent or that the Defendants may argue that the expiration of the statute of

Page 47 of 49
limitations may expire, it is filed without an affidavit by expert licensed by the Supreme

Court of the State of South Carolina specifying at least one negligent act or omission

claimed to exist and the factual basis for each claim based on the available evidence at

the time of the filing of the affidavit. Plaintiff intends to file an Amended Complaint with

an expert affidavit within forty-five (45) days.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants, David Hicks, Esq.,

MACDONALD & HICKS, P.A., Lane D. Jefferies, Esq., Henrietta Ms. Golding, ESQ., and

MCNAIR; jointly and severally, for all actual damages, consequential damages, and

incidental damages, punitive damages, and for prejudgment interest, all in an amount to

be more specifically proven at trial, and the costs of this action, and for such other and

further relief as this Honorable Court may deem just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

PENDARVIS LAW OFFICES, PC

s/ Thomas A. Pendarvis_____
Thomas A. Pendarvis (SC Bar # 064918)
Christopher W. Lempesis, Jr. (SC Bar #77012)
710 Boundary Street, Unit A-1
Beaufort, SC 29902-4188
843.524.9500
Thomas@PendarvisLaw.com
Chris@PendarvisLaw.com

WESTON CRAIG ANTHONY, LLC

s/Joseph R. Weston
Joseph R. Weston (SC Bar # 066430)
Stephanie P. Anthony (SC Bar #101833)
P.O. Box 1992

Page 48 of 49
 Mt. Pleasant SC 29465-1992
843.881.4995
joe@wcalawfirm.com
stephanie@wcalawfirm.com

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS

Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina

March 29, 2019

Page 49 of 49