interest in the Annuity to remain with [Claude].” Supporting the trial court’s finding is a letter from Jean to Cindy Lott, Jean’s daughter and the personal representative of her estate, and testimony from Lott. Jean’s letter stated “I went to United today and had my beneficiary changed on my IRA account. I put it in your name and Dianne as [contingent] in case something happens to you. Dianne is beneficiary to my annuity account.” Lott testified that Jean attempted to change the beneficiary of annuity and that Jean thought that the beneficiary was changed. Claude argues, however, that both Jean’s letter and Lott’s testimony violate the Dead Man’s Statute, S.C.Code Ann. § 19-11-20 (1985). Unquestionably, Jean’s letter is admissible. Harris v. Berry, 231 S.C. 201, 98 S.E.2d 251 (1957) (<HOLDING>). In addition, because Lott’s testimony is
holding that defendants were not in control and therefore were not supervisors and not subject to liability under  1983 holding that the shareholders were not thirdparty beneficiaries because they were not directly benefited by the contract between the government and the thrifts holding that letters written by decedent to the testatrix and a first cousin who were designated as beneficiaries under the will were not within prohibition of the dead mans statute and were improperly excluded holding that the litigation privilege did not preclude a malicious prosecution claim where the accusatorial statements that led to the plaintiffs arrest were made before the charges against him were filed and were not made during and were unrelated to the judicial proceeding holding that because the record does not indicate that the extraneous documents or averments were excluded by the court  we must assume that they were considered