Buchanan v. Buchanan
| Decision Date | 07 September 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. COA09-1085.,COA09-1085. |
| Citation | 698 S.E.2d 485 |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Kevin D. BUCHANAN, Executor of the Estate of Kelly Buchanan and Guardian of the property of Tiffany Hope Buchanan, a minor; Kevin David Buchanan, Individually; and Christopher Buchanan, Individually, Plaintiffs,v.Teresa Hagy BUCHANAN, Defendant. |
Appeal by plaintiffs from orders entered on 28 December 2006 and 13 April 2009 by Judge W. Erwin Spainhour in Superior Court, Cabarrus County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 10 February 2010.
Ferguson, Scarbrough, Hayes, Hawkins & DeMay, P.A. Concord, by James R. DeMay, for plaintiffs-appellants.
M.T. Lowder & Associates, Albemarle, by Mark T. Lowder, for defendant-appellee.
Kevin D. Buchanan, individually, as executor of the estate of Kelly Buchanan, and as guardian of the property of Tiffany Hope Buchanan, a minor, and Christopher Buchanan, individually, (collectively referred to as “plaintiffs”) appeal from a trial court's order declaring that Teresa Hagy Buchanan (“defendant”) received an “estate for years” from decedent's will and an order denying plaintiffs' motion for a new trial. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court's orders.
Kelly Buchanan (“decedent”) died testate on 9 September 2005. Decedent was survived by his wife, defendant Teresa Hagy Buchanan, and his three children, plaintiffs Kevin Buchanan, Christopher Buchanan, and Tiffany Buchanan, a minor. Tiffany Buchanan, born 12 May 1992, is the only child from decedent's marriage to defendant. Plaintiffs are decedent's adult children from a prior marriage.
The trial court went on to order that defendant had received an estate for years from decedent's will; defendant had exclusive possessory right to the subject property during the term of her interest; and plaintiffs held a vested remainder in the subject property.1
On 8 January 2007, plaintiffs filed a motion for a new trial pursuant to N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 59(a)(7) and (9), arguing that the verdict entered by the trial court was contrary to law and not supported by the evidence. Plaintiffs' primary argument was that it was not decedent's intention in his will to give defendant exclusive possessory rights in the subject property, where decedent's children-plaintiffs-had been residing at the time of decedent's death, but instead it was decedent's intention to only to give defendant a “right to live in the home.” By order entered 13 April 2009, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion. On 11 May 2009, plaintiffs filed notice of appeal from the trial court's 28 December 2006 declaratory judgment order and 13 April 2009 order denying their motion for a new trial.
Plaintiffs first contend that “the trial court committed reversible error in finding that defendant received an estate for years under the last will and testament of Kelly Buchanan.” Plaintiffs contend that there is an ambiguity in decedent's will. Plaintiffs argue that to resolve this ambiguity the court must consider the extrinsic circumstances surrounding the execution of the will “to effectuate [decedent's] intent and interpret the will according to this intent.” Plaintiffs contend that “the only result supported by the four corners of the will and the attendant circumstances is that [decedent] desired that defendant be allowed to remain in the home and serve as a mother-figure for the minor daughter until the minor became an adult.” Plaintiffs contend that although defendant may live in the home to “serve as a mother-figure,” she may not allow any person of her choosing other than Tiffany to live in the home, although plaintiffs may also live with defendant in the home if they so desire. Plaintiffs conclude that “[a]ll that was conveyed unto defendant by the will was the simple privilege for defendant to live in the home, not some exclusive possessory interest such as an estate for years.”
A. Standard of Review
This Court has held that under the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, “the court's findings of fact are conclusive if supported by any competent evidence; and a judgment supported by such findings will be affirmed, even though there is evidence which might sustain findings to the contrary [.]” Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Allison, 51 N.C.App. 654, 657, 277 S.E.2d 473, 475 disc. review denied, 303 N.C. 315, 281 S.E.2d 652 (1981). Thus, “[t]he function of our review is, then, to determine whether the record contains competent evidence to support the findings[ ] and whether the findings support the conclusions.” Id. The trial court's conclusions of law are reviewable de novo. Cross v. Capital Transaction Grp., Inc., 191 N.C.App. 115, 117, 661 S.E.2d 778, 780 (2008) (citation omitted) disc. review denied, 363 N.C. 124, 672 S.E.2d 687 (2009).
Hollowell v. Hollowell, 333 N.C. 706, 712, 430 S.E.2d 235, 240 (1993). However, “[i]f the terms of a will are set forth in clear, unequivocal and unambiguous language, judicial construction is unnecessary[.]” Morse v. Zatkiewiez, 5 N.C.App. 242, 246, 168 S.E.2d 219, 223 (1969). (citing 1 Wiggins, Wills and Administration of Estates in N.C., § 132, pp. 396, 397, and cases therein cited) see
Wachovia, 243 N.C. at 474, 91 S.E.2d at 250 .
The relevant portions of decedent's will state:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Collier v. Bryant (In re Collier)
...policy or some rule of law and the will must be construed according to the “four corners” of the will. Buchanan v. Buchanan, ––– N.C.App. ––––, ––––, 698 S.E.2d 485, 488 (2010) (citations omitted). In Slater, this Court held that a will provision clearly intending to devise land in fee simp......
- State Carolina v. Biber
- State Of North Carolina v. Biber
-
Rutledge v. Feher
...children rather than a contingent remainder interest at the moment of its creation. Their argument rests on Buchanan v. Buchanan , 207 N.C. App. 112, 698 S.E.2d 485 (2010), in which this Court stated,[A] remainder is vested, when, throughout its continuance, the remainderman and his heirs h......