Matter of Will of Joyner

242 S.E.2d 213, 35 N.C. App. 666, 1978 N.C. App. LEXIS 3059
CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina
DecidedMarch 21, 1978
Docket778SC493
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 242 S.E.2d 213 (Matter of Will of Joyner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Matter of Will of Joyner, 242 S.E.2d 213, 35 N.C. App. 666, 1978 N.C. App. LEXIS 3059 (N.C. Ct. App. 1978).

Opinion

WEBB, Judge.

The determination of this case depends on the construction of G.S. 31-32 which says:

“At the time of . . . the probate thereof in common form, or at any time within three years thereafter, any person entitled under such will, or interested in the estate, may appear in person or by attorney before the clerk of the superior court and enter a caveat to the probate of such will.”

If the caveators have any standing to maintain this proceeding, it is as “any person entitled under such will, or interested in the estate.” The propounders rely on some of the language of In re Thompson, 178 N.C. 540, 101 S.E. 107 (1919) that a person must have a pecuniary interest in the outcome of a *668 caveat proceeding to have standing to maintain it. They also rely on In re Will of Edgerton, 29 N.C. App. 60, 223 S.E. 2d 524 (1976). Thompson holds that the purchasers of land from the heirs at law of the deceased are persons who are interested in the estate and may maintain a caveat. Edgerton holds the son of a testator who before his father’s death released all interest in the estate has no standing to caveat the will. We do not believe either case is controlling here.

We hold that under the plain words of the statute the caveators in this case are persons who are “entitled under such will, or interested in the estate.” This gives them standing to maintain a caveat to the will. The Superior Court was in error for dismissing the caveat.

In light of this decision, we do not pass on the appeal from the order entered 28 February 1977.

Reversed.

Judges Parker and Vaughn concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Murrow v. Henson
616 S.E.2d 664 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
242 S.E.2d 213, 35 N.C. App. 666, 1978 N.C. App. LEXIS 3059, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-will-of-joyner-ncctapp-1978.