By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: December 8,2011
Smith v. Marez Where the decedent did not fill out the change-of-beneficiary forms for his IRAs with the required information, but where he clearly revoked his prior beneficiary designations, the decedent’s widow became the owner of the decedent’s IRAs. We affirm summary judgment for the widow.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: November 2,2011
Collier v. Bryant The testator’s will directed his executrix to sell his real property and divide the proceeds among his four children unless all four agreed to divide the property. Since the executrix was one of the testator’s four children, the will gave her the right to sell the testator’s real property; title to the real property did not vest in the testator’s children upon his death. We affirm in part and reverse in part the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: September 22,2011
Willis v. Willis. A general warranty deed cannot be reformed on the basis of unilateral mistake since the plaintiff failed to prove that the deed did not represent the original intent of the parties at the time it was signed.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: September 14,2011
In re Estate of Raney A brother presented enough evidence to go to the jury on the question of whether his sister unduly influenced their mother - while the mother was under a doctor’s care and was living in the sister’s house — to change her will in favor of the sister. We affirm the trial court’s denial of the sister’s motions for a directed verdict, for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and for a new trial.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: September 14,2011
Oakes v. Oakes The defendant-beneficiary’s counterclaim did not request the trust modifications set out in the trial court’s summary judgment order, and no evidence supported the modifications. We reverse summary judgment for the defendant-lifetime beneficiary and remand for further proceedings.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: August 24,2011
In re Estate of Prest Where appeals arising pursuant to G.S. § 1-301.2 do not require that the notice of appeal to superior court specify the basis for the appeal, respondents’ “Notice of Appeal to the Superior Court of Carteret County, of the Order issued in the Special Proceedings Division of Carteret County Civil Superior Court, on July 15, 2010 ... which granted the relief sought by the Petitioners in their Petition for Private Sale of Real property in [file number 10 SP 129]” satisfied the § 1-301.2 content requirements for notice of appeal. We reverse the superior court’s dismissal of respondents’ appeal.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: August 12,2011
In Re: Estate of Reeder The clerk’s order was predicated upon a misapprehension about the meaning of the term “separation” in an agreement between the parties, interpreting it to mean “legal separation.” The clerk granted the spouse’s request to be awarded an elective share based upon this misapprehension. The trial court’s order affirming the clerk’s order is reversed, with instructions to remand this case to the clerk.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: July 21,2011
Yost v. Yost Since the terms of the non-family member trustees have all expired, the successor trustees for these positions are to be elected by the three family member trustees. The board of trustees can stagger the non-family member trustees’ terms or the trust protectors can amend the trust to prevent this situation from recurring.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: May 18,2011
In re Estate of MangumA parenting agreement satisfies the requirements of G.S. § 29-19, and petitioner is the heir of his biological daughter. We affirm the superior court's order upholding the clerk's determination that petitioner is the decedent's heir. G.S. § 29-19(b)(2) and (c) state, "(b) For purposes of intestate succession, an illegitimate child shall be entitled to take by, through and from: ... (2) Any person who has acknowledged himself during his own lifetime and the child's lifetime to be the father of such child in a written instrument executed or acknowledged before a certifying officer named in G.S. 52-10(b) and filed during his own lifetime and the child's lifetime in the office of the clerk of superior court of the county where either he or the child resides.....
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: May 2,2011
In re Estate of Militana Even though caveator argued the trial court's attorneys' fee awards would deplete the estate, there was conflicting evidence as to the size of the estate.
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
In re Hutchinson Where the state agreed to the removal of a sex offender from its sex offender registry, it cannot ask the courts to rescind the removal because offenders are required to be registered for 10 years when the state raises that issue for the first time on appeal. The trial court, which upheld the removal, has subject matter jurisdiction on petitions of termination of registration even when the sex offenders have been registered in North Carolina for less than the normally requisite 10 years.
State v. Reynolds Even though, when the trial judge informed defendant of the maximum sentence he could receive if he pled guilty, the judge was only off by three months, we cannot say that an additional three months of possible imprisonment is not prejudicial. Further, we are reluctant to establish precedent for a trial court’s providing incorrect information to a defendant prior to accepting a guilty plea.
State v. Shaw Even though a defendant may waive his right to be present at trial, he has no right to be absent from his trial.
State v. Williams Although the bail-bond surety located and surrendered defendant to the sheriff on the 150th day after her failure to appear, the surety did so at 9:40 p.m., after the courthouse had closed for the day. We do not agree that the 150-day period set out in G.S. § 15A-544.5 extends until 11:59 p.m. on the 150th day.
Workplace strife is increasingly boiling over into the realms of social media. But when employees rant about their bosses on Facebook and badmouth the companies they work for on Twitter, what are the repercussions?
In re Hutchinson Where the state agreed to the removal of a sex offender from its sex offender registry, it cannot ask the courts to rescind the removal because offenders are required to be registered for 10 years when the state raises that issue for the first time on appeal. The trial court, which upheld the removal, has subject matter jurisdiction on petitions of termination of registration even when the sex offenders have been registered in North Carolina for less than the normally requisite 10 years.
State v. Reynolds Even though, when the trial judge informed defendant of the maximum sentence he could receive if he pled guilty, the judge was only off by three months, we cannot say that an additional three months of possible imprisonment is not prejudicial. Further, we are reluctant to establish precedent for a trial court’s providing incorrect information to a defendant prior to accepting a guilty plea.
State v. Shaw Even though a defendant may waive his right to be present at trial, he has no right to be absent from his trial.
