Tag Archives: Wills

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.

Read More »

Civil Practice – Prior Pending Action Doctrine – Different Issues & Relief Requests – Trusts & Estates – Wills – Testamentary Capacity & Undue Influence – Tort/Negligence – Conversion & Breach of Fiduciary Duty (access required)

Shoaf v. Shoaf Plaintiffs’ will caveat proceeding presents the issues of the testatrix’s testamentary capacity and undue influence while this tort action presents the issues of whether defendant converted the testatrix’s property and breached his fiduciary duty to her while she was alive. The caveat proceeding seeks to have the testatrix’s will set aside, while this action seeks damages and a constructive trust. Even though the two proceedings involve the same parties, they do not present the same legal issues or demand the same relief; therefore, the prior pending action doctrine does not apply.

Read More »

Trusts & Estates – Wills – Real Property – Sale by Executrix – Tort/Negligence – Fraud & Constructive Fraud – Self-Dealing (access required)

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.

Read More »