By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: March 20,2013
Bissette v. Harrod Plaintiffs waited too long to try to enforce a contract for conveyance of an easement, and plaintiffs can’t enforce the contract under the longer statute of limitations applicable to trust claims.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: March 6,2013
Charles Schwab & Co. v. McEntee Although the beneficiary of the testator’s trust disagrees with the settlement that the executor reached with the testator’s ex-wife, the executor functions as a proxy for all persons interested in the estate, including its beneficiaries. The beneficiary did not allege facts which would indicate that its interest was not adequately represented by the executor.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: March 6,2013
Hankins v. Bartlett Where any contract between the parties’ parents to maintain joint and mutual wills would have necessarily involved devising real property, any such contract would be subject to the statute of frauds.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: August 23,2012
RL Regi North Carolina, LLC v. Estate of Moser Although the decedent’s will granted its co-executors broad powers, the will’s co-executors lacked the authority to have the estate guarantee a loan that was borrowed for the purpose of developing raw land owned by the decedent’s company.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: August 8,2012
White v. Harold L. & Audree S. Mills Charitable Remainder Unitrust At the time the trial court entered summary judgment for defendants, named plaintiff Ray White no longer had the authority to sustain the present action because his ward had passed away. Although the trial court subsequently entered a consent order substituting the collector of the ward/decedent’s estate as plaintiff, we must vacate the summary judgment order against then-named plaintiff White and remand for the court’s consideration of any issues presented by the collector of the decedent’s estate.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: August 8,2012
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: July 17,2012
Bigger v. Arnold The trial court ruled in favor of one beneficiary (the testator’s widow) over another beneficiary (a college). The college – the aggrieved party -- did not appeal. Since the order affected only the distribution rights of the beneficiaries, the executor lacks standing to appeal.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: June 5,2012
Belk v. Belk Where the Uniform Transfers to Minors Act is silent as to the contours of the accounting remedy provided for in G.S. § 33A-19(a) and (d), we hold that a trial court may award interest on funds wrongfully disbursed, representing the loss of appreciation on such funds.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: May 17,2012
Dayton v. Dayton Where the trial court made a final finding under G.S. § 28C-11(a) that plaintiff’s missing person had suffered an accidental death, this was a final decree, and the defendant-insurance company neither appealed, nor timely filed a motion to amend.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: May 10,2012
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.
NC Lawyers Weekly keeps you connected with the latest legal news, Daily Practice and Breaking
News alerts.
Sign up for NC Lawyers Weekly email alerts
Bartlett v. Wayne County Board of Education Plaintiffs contend that the majority of eyewitnesses in this case testified that the responding officer’s diagram depicting the accident scene was accurate, that the diagram demonstrates plaintiffs’ “van had to have been almost directly in front of the bus at the time [the bus driver] started her turn,” and that this evidence conclusively established that the bus driver failed to yield the right-of-way to plaintiffs’ van.
Fidelity Bank v. North Carolina Department of Revenue Even though the N.C. Revenue Act uses the Internal Revenue Code to determine state net income, and even though the Code treats “market discount income” on U.S. Treasury bonds as interest for purposes of the Code, under the N.C. Revenue Act market discount income on U.S. Treasury bonds is treated as income rather than interest.
Apex Tool Group, LLC v. Ingersoll-Rand Co. Neither plaintiff nor the individual defendants are Texas residents; nevertheless, each of the individual defendants’ employment agreements includes an unambiguous and mandatory forum selection clause, which says any lawsuit involving the agreement must be brought in Harris County, Texas. The employment agreements were entered into by plaintiff’s predecessor and the individual defendants, who apparently did not live in Texas when they entered into the contracts and thus apparently anticipated interstate travel in the event of a trial.
