I. LOWER COURTS ERRED BY ACTING ON A PETITION FILED AND SERVED WITHOUT SUMMONS AS REQUIRED BY FEDERAL COMMON LAW AND FEDERAL PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS?

II. WHETHER A PERSON WHO IS NOT A QUALIFIED ELECTOR OF A COUNTY WHERE A PROBATE COURT MATTER IS PROPERLY LOCATED CAN SERVE AS A PROBATE COURT JUDGE FOR THAT COUNTY IN ANY CAPACITY IN DEROGATION OF PETITIONERS' RIGHT TO VOTE AND THE US CONSTITUTION'S RIGHT OF ONE MAN ONE VOTE?

III. DID THE TRIAL COURT COMMIT AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION PREJUDICING THE PETITIONERS' RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL BY QUASHING A CERTAIN SUBPOENA AND NOT UNREDACTING A CERTAIN LETTER IN VIOLATION OF PETITIONERS' DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO PRESENT EVIDENCE AND PROPERLY CROSS-EXAMINE AN OPPOSING PARTY?

IV. RESPONDENT KNIGHT-TONNEY'S CLAIM IS AN EQUITABLE ACTION SUBJECT TO DE NOVO REVIEW AND OTHER EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES?

V. THE LOWER COURTS FAILED TO UPHOLD §.C.CODE ANN. 308) AND THE AUTOMATIC?

VI. CONSCIOUS, INTENTIONAL FAILURE TO DISCLOSE FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS TO MILDRED KNIGHT REQUIRED BY COURT APPOINTMENT AND EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES IS CONDUCT SUBSTANTIATING FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT TO ENTER A CONTRACT?

VII. THE LOWER COURTS' ALLOWANCE OF RESPONDENT KNIGHT-TONNEY'S CLAIM IS AGAINST THE GREATER WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AND AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION?

VIII. THE LOWER COURTS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT RESPONDENT TONNEY'S CLAIM FOR REPAYMENT WAS TIMELY FILED?

IX. THE LOWER COURTS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT RESPONDENT KNIGHT-TONNEY HAD SATISFIED THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CASE-IN-CHIEF?

X. THE LOWER COURTS ERRED BY REIMBURSING RESPONDENT KNIGHT-TONNEY FOR ATTORNEY FEES IN PARENTS' FAMILY COURT MATTER AND ALLOWING FULL INTEREST ON JUDGMENT?

XI. BEATRICE WHITTEN SHOULD BE REMOVED AS SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR?

Whether lower courts erred by acting on a petition filed and served without summons as required