Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. Ketchum

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. Ketchum

333 S.E.2d 542, 76 N.C. App. 539, 1985 N.C. App. LEXIS 3891

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedSeptember 3, 1985

DocketNo. 855SC297

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 333 S.E.2d 542 (Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. Ketchum) 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

Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. Ketchum, 333 S.E.2d 542, 76 N.C. App. 539, 1985 N.C. App. LEXIS 3891 (N.C. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

WELLS, Judge.

In construing disputed provisions of a will, the task of the courts is to ascertain the true intent of the testator. Pittman v. Thomas, 307 N.C. 485, 299 S.E. 2d 207 (1983). The language used, and the sense in which it is used by the testator is the primary source of information to determine the testator’s intentions. Id. The will is to be construed in the light of the circumstances existing at the time the will was made, including the condition, nature, and extent of the testator’s property. Id.

Applying these principles of construction to the case before us, we hold that the trial court ruled correctly. It appears from the findings made by the trial court that at the time Ms. Targett made her will, she had at least $80,000.00 of assets in the types of assets included in Item 6 of her will. Thus, it is clear that Ms. Targett then intended that Bea Ketchum be a beneficiary of a substantial portion of her estate. Wachovia’s business judgment to convert Ms. Targett’s assets from one form to another in the administration of her affairs should not be allowed to defeat her true intent to substantially benefit Ms. Ketchum.

For the reasons stated, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

[541]*541Affirmed.

Chief Judge HEDRICK and Judge WEBB concur.

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

WELLS, Judge.

In construing disputed provisions of a will, the task of the courts is to ascertain the true intent of the testator. Pittman v. Thomas, 307 N.C. 485, 299 S.E. 2d 207 (1983). The language used, and the sense in which it is used by the testator is the primary source of information to determine the testator’s intentions. Id. The will is to be construed in the light of the circumstances existing at the time the will was made, including the condition, nature, and extent of the testator’s property. Id.

Applying these principles of construction to the case before us, we hold that the trial court ruled correctly. It appears from the findings made by the trial court that at the time Ms. Targett made her will, she had at least $80,000.00 of assets in the types of assets included in Item 6 of her will. Thus, it is clear that Ms. Targett then intended that Bea Ketchum be a beneficiary of a substantial portion of her estate. Wachovia’s business judgment to convert Ms. Targett’s assets from one form to another in the administration of her affairs should not be allowed to defeat her true intent to substantially benefit Ms. Ketchum.

For the reasons stated, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

[541]*541Affirmed.

Chief Judge HEDRICK and Judge WEBB concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

333 S.E.2d 542, 76 N.C. App. 539, 1985 N.C. App. LEXIS 3891, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wachovia-bank-trust-co-v-ketchum-ncctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack