North Carolina National Bank v. C. P. Robinson Co.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

North Carolina National Bank v. C. P. Robinson Co.

341 S.E.2d 362, 80 N.C. App. 160, 1986 N.C. App. LEXIS 2159

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedApril 1, 1986

DocketNo. 8521SC788

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 341 S.E.2d 362 (North Carolina National Bank v. C. P. Robinson Co.) 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

North Carolina National Bank v. C. P. Robinson Co., 341 S.E.2d 362, 80 N.C. App. 160, 1986 N.C. App. LEXIS 2159 (N.C. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinions

ARNOLD, Judge.

Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to transfer the matter to Anson County for a determination of his interest under his father’s will. We agree.

Plaintiff asserts that G.S. 1-307 supports the decision of the trial court. That statute provides that "[executions and other process for the enforcement of judgments can issue only from the court in which the judgment for the enforcement of the execution or other final process was rendered . . . .” Plaintiff maintains it [162]*162was only seeking to enforce its judgment on the note and thus the trial court acted properly in denying defendant’s motion.

Defendant on the other hand asserts that G.S. 28A-3-1 is controlling. That statute provides that “[t]he venue for the probate of a will and for all proceedings relating to the administration of the estate of a decedent shall be: (1) If [sic] the county in this State where the decedent had his domicile at the time of his death. . . .” Defendant’s father lived in Anson County at the time of his death and the will was probated there. Defendant argues that his interest under the will must be determined in Anson County before plaintiff can execute on that interest.

While we are sympathetic to plaintiffs attempts to collect the 1974 judgment on which defendant has made no payments, the better policy requires an initial determination of defendant’s interest under the will in the county of probate. Once this determination has been made, plaintiff may then seek an order for execution from Forsyth County Superior Court if defendant has an interest which can be sold. To allow a party to seek construction of a will in conjunction with and pursuant to G.S. 1-307 would overly burden that procedure and open the door to possible confusion in the administration of estates. For this reason we hold that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to transfer the matter to Anson County. We vacate the order of the trial court and rescind all actions pursuant to that order.

Vacated.

Judge WELLS concurs. Judge WEBB dissents.

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

ARNOLD, Judge.

Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to transfer the matter to Anson County for a determination of his interest under his father’s will. We agree.

Plaintiff asserts that G.S. 1-307 supports the decision of the trial court. That statute provides that "[executions and other process for the enforcement of judgments can issue only from the court in which the judgment for the enforcement of the execution or other final process was rendered . . . .” Plaintiff maintains it [162]*162was only seeking to enforce its judgment on the note and thus the trial court acted properly in denying defendant’s motion.

Defendant on the other hand asserts that G.S. 28A-3-1 is controlling. That statute provides that “[t]he venue for the probate of a will and for all proceedings relating to the administration of the estate of a decedent shall be: (1) If [sic] the county in this State where the decedent had his domicile at the time of his death. . . .” Defendant’s father lived in Anson County at the time of his death and the will was probated there. Defendant argues that his interest under the will must be determined in Anson County before plaintiff can execute on that interest.

While we are sympathetic to plaintiffs attempts to collect the 1974 judgment on which defendant has made no payments, the better policy requires an initial determination of defendant’s interest under the will in the county of probate. Once this determination has been made, plaintiff may then seek an order for execution from Forsyth County Superior Court if defendant has an interest which can be sold. To allow a party to seek construction of a will in conjunction with and pursuant to G.S. 1-307 would overly burden that procedure and open the door to possible confusion in the administration of estates. For this reason we hold that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to transfer the matter to Anson County. We vacate the order of the trial court and rescind all actions pursuant to that order.

Vacated.

Judge WELLS concurs. Judge WEBB dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

341 S.E.2d 362, 80 N.C. App. 160, 1986 N.C. App. LEXIS 2159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/north-carolina-national-bank-v-c-p-robinson-co-ncctapp-1986.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack