Trusts & Estates – Wills – Real Property – Direction to Sell – Upset Bid Procedure – Inapplicable

Trusts & Estates – Wills – Real Property – Direction to Sell – Upset Bid Procedure – Inapplicable (access required)

Riggs v. Burns Since the testator’s will directed that his land be sold and the proceeds divided among his beneficiaries, the will vested title in the testator’s heirs – not the executrix – pending the sale. Therefore, G.S. § 28A-17-10 does not apply, and there was no requirement that the executrix’s private sale of the land be subject to the upset bid provisions of G.S. Chapter 1, Article 29A. We affirm judgment on the pleadings for defendants.

Login required


You have clicked on a link to information that is exclusive to NC Lawyers Weekly subscribers.

	Email Address: Password:	Already a paid subscriber but not registered for online access yet? For instructions on how to get premium web access, click here. Forgot Password?

Interested in Subscribing?

Start by choosing how you'd like your news delivered.

- Print and Digital -

- Digital Only -

Try North Carolina Lawyers Weekly for a month
for only $39 AND get a free whitepaper:

Exit strategy: a solo and
small-firm lawyer's guide to
the how and when of retirement

Click here to subscribe now.

POST A COMMENT

Comments are closed.

Most Important Opinions

Environmental – CWA Permit Upheld for Mine Company (access required)

Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers The 4th Circuit affirms issuance of a water quality permit under the Clean Water Act to Highland Mining Company, on the basis that a proposed surface coal mine adjacent to a stream in Logan County would not damage water quality or violate water quality standards.

Criminal Practice – Armed Robbery – Bullets (access required)

State v. Bell Even though defendant presented evidence that he unloaded the gun before he went into an insurance office, pointed the gun at the victim, and demanded money, there was also evidence that defendant was aware from almost the moment he left the insurance office that the police were watching him, he chose to flee, and he attempted to hide evidence by disposing of it in the woods.

Criminal Practice – Post-conviction DNA Testing – Attorneys – Appointment of Counsel (access required)

State v. Gardner Where defendant has provided no explanation as to why post-conviction DNA testing would be material to his defense, he has failed to establish a condition precedent to the trial court’s authority to appoint counsel for him under G.S. § 15A-269.