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.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: February 15,2012
Estate of Davis v. Groff As administrator of the decedent’s estate, plaintiff was entitled to bring suit in the county where he resides. This rule of law, which was set down by our Supreme Court in Trust Co. v. Finch, 232 N.C. 485, 61 S.E.2d 377 (1950), was not and could not be changed by this court’s holding in Roberts v. Adventure Holdings, LLC, 703 S.E.2d 784 (2010), disc. review denied, 365 N.C. 187, 707 S.E.2d 241 (2011). Furthermore, although Roberts held that a guardian ad litem’s residence was insufficient to justify venue, the court also explained that the law regarding administrators and other fiduciaries did not apply to GALs.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: February 14,2012
Estate of Formyduval v. YeddoEven though plaintiffs’ decedent was allegedly incompetent when she transferred property to defendants during the 1990’s, since the decedent was declared incompetent on Aug. 13, 1999 and a guardian was appointed for her on Sept. 3, 1999, the statute of limitations on plaintiffs’ constructive trust claim began running on Sept. 3, 1999.
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.
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
Front Street Construction, LLC v. Colonial Bank, N.A. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC), as receiver for failed bank Colonial Bank, N.A., entered into a purchase and assumption agreement (PAA) with Branch Banking and Trust Co. Some of plaintiffs’ claims against BB&T arose from acts or omissions by Colonial and were not addressed in the PAA. As to those claims, plaintiffs must exhaust their administrative remedies under the Financial Institutional Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) before they can seek judicial remedies.
State v. Squires When a state trooper saw a pickup truck on the side of the road after midnight and stopped to see if any assistance was needed, he was not required to leave after a person outside the truck told him everything was okay. The trooper did not impermissibly extend the stop when he checked on the driver of the vehicle.
State v. Rouse Even though, in his opening and closing statements, defense counsel referred to the arresting officers as “very good officers,” counsel did so in the context of arguing that everyone makes mistakes. Counsel could have reasonably made a tactical decision to refrain from challenging the officers’ general professionalism and competence, while still encouraging the jury to find that the officers arrested defendant on May 23, 2010 as a result of their inadvertent mistakes.
Robinson v. North Carolina Department of Correction Where plaintiff testified that, all the way around his wrist, there were “teeth marks” from too-tight handcuffs and that his wrist was bruised and swollen, but where a drawing plaintiff made to document his injuries indicated that only his left finger and thumb were swollen with no indication of bruising, discoloration, a cut or “teeth marks” laterally around his wrist, the evidence supports the Industrial Commission’s finding that plaintiff’s drawing was inconsistent with his testimony regarding his injuries.
