Home / Opinion Digest / Trusts and Estates

Trusts and Estates

Feed Subscription

Trusts & Estates – Breach of Trust – Self-Dealing – Successive Deeds — Void (access required)

THZ Holdings, LLC v. McCrea Even though the trustee lent the trust money to buy a home for the beneficiaries, there was no deed of trust on the real property, and the subsequently-executed “credit advance agreement” between the trustee and the trust provided that the trust was to repay the trustee by Dec. 31, 2018. When the trustee transferred title to the real property to himself individually in exchange for forgiveness of the purchase-money debt, this was a breach of trust.

Read More »

Trusts & Estates – Wills – Widow’s Elective Share – Abandonment Claim – Living Apart (access required)

In re Hendrick After their late-in-life marriage, the decedent and the widow only lived together for about a month before the widow moved back to the city from the decedent’s country home. There was evidence to support the trial court’s findings as to the couple’s continuing relationship – visits, dates, and weekend trips together, as well as the decedent’s caring for the widow when she was disabled by dementia. The trial court’s findings support its conclusion that the widow did not willfully abandon the decedent.

Read More »

Trusts & Estates – Civil Practice – Statute of Limitations – First Impression – Continuing Wrong Doctrine – Inapplicable (access required)

Robert K. Ward Living Trust v. Peck : The plain language of G.S. § 36C-10-1005 indicates that the continuing wrong doctrine does not apply in this case. Once defendant resigned as trustee, his acts as trustee ended; at that point, the five-year statute of limitations in § 36C-10-1005 began to run.

Read More »

Trusts & Estates – Real Property – Judicial Sale – Confirmation – Consent Order – Civil Practice – Appeals – Jurisdiction (access required)

Britt v. West Although a consent order specified that one tract of land would be divided between two of the testatrix’s children before other tracts were judicially sold, both plaintiffs’ and defendants’ attorneys actively participated in the judicial sales. Plaintiffs cite no authority suggesting that the order of dealing with the tracts would make the judicial sale of two tracts invalid.

Read More »
Scroll To Top