IN THE MATTER OF WILL
Decision Date | 05 February 2002 |
Docket Number | No. COA01-21.,COA01-21. |
Citation | 148 NC App. 526,559 S.E.2d 556 |
Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Parties | In the Matter of the WILL OF Cornelius Winston ALLEN, Deceased. |
Love & Love, P.A. by Jimmy L. Love, Sr., Sanford, for caveators-appellants.
Harrington, Ward, Gilleland & Winstead, L.L.P., by Eddie S. Winstead, III, Sanford, for propounders-appellees.
Mr. Cornelius Allen (Mr. Allen), an elderly widower from Lee County, died on 2 December 1998. He had no living wife or children, and was succeeded by a brother, two sisters, and a nephew (caveators). Upon his death, a handwritten will was found among other papers in a wooden bowl on his kitchen counter.
The will had been witnessed by two of Mr. Allen's friends on 2 January 1991. It bequeathed to one caveator a car, to another his household possessions; left his house to one of the propounders; and divided the contents of a safety deposit box between one of the propounders and one of the caveators. The will also included two phrases, which appeared to be written with a different pen: "bank close" and "to and wife Valerie." Propounders submitted the will for probate on 3 December 1998. Caveators filed a caveat on 23 August 1999, alleging that the will was not a validly executed holographic will. On 2 October 2000 a jury trial was held on the issue of the validity of Mr. Allen's will. Caveators moved for a directed verdict at the close of the propounders's evidence, and again at the close of all the evidence; their motions were denied. The jury returned a verdict in favor of propounders, finding the will was a valid holographic will. Caveators appeal from the denial of their motions for directed verdict, and from the verdict. Caveators argue that the trial court erred in its denial of their motion for a directed verdict. "A motion for directed verdict tests the sufficiency of the evidence to take the case to the jury." Lake Mary Ltd. Partnership v. Johnston, 145 N.C.App. 525, 530, 551 S.E.2d 546, 551,disc. review denied, 354 N.C. 363, 557 S.E.2d 538, 539 (2001) (quoting Abels v. Renfro Corp., 335 N.C. 209, 214-15, 436 S.E.2d 822, 825 (1993)). In ruling on a motion for directed verdict, the trial court applies the following standard:
In re Will of Sechrest, 140 N.C.App. 464, 468, 537 S.E.2d 511, 515 (2000) ( ), disc. review denied, 353 N.C. 375, 547 S.E.2d 16 (2001) (citations omitted). Further:
The trial court is required to submit to the jury those issues `raised by the pleadings and supported by the evidence.' An issue is supported by the evidence when there is substantial evidence, considered in the light most favorable to the non-movant, in support of that issue. `Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'
In re Estate of Ferguson, 135 N.C.App. 102, 105, 518 S.E.2d 796, 798 (1999) (quoting Johnson v. Massengill, 280 N.C. 376, 384, 186 S.E.2d 168, 174 (1972)) and (quoting State v. Smith, 300 N.C. 71, 78-79, 265 S.E.2d 164, 169 (1980)) (citation omitted). The trial court's ruling on a directed verdict motion is addressed to the court's discretion, and will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion. Crist v. Crist, 145 N.C.App. 418, 550 S.E.2d 260 (2001).
In the instant case, the only issue raised by caveators' motion for directed verdict was the validity of Mr. Allen's will. The motion should be denied if the trial evidence, considered in the light most favorable to propounders, was sufficient to allow a reasonable mind to find that the validity of Mr. Allen's holographic will had been established by the preponderance of the evidence. We therefore review the law governing holographic wills. The three requirements for a valid holographic will are set forth in N.C.G.S. § 31-3.4 (1999), which provides that:
Caveators first argue that their directed verdict motion should have been granted because the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to meet the statutory requirement that the will be either "written entirely in the handwriting of the testator," or, in the alternative, that if the words not in Mr. Allen's handwriting were disregarded, the remainder would constitute a valid holographic will. Caveators allege that the phrases "bank close" and "to and wife Valerie" were written by someone other than Mr. Allen, and that these words materially alter the meaning of the will, thus invalidating it.
Caveators contend that "[u]ncontradicted expert testimony established that Mr. Allen did not write the entire will[,]" entitling them to directed verdict on this issue. At trial, a handwriting expert testified that the disputed phrases did not appear to be in Mr. Allen's handwriting. However, we are not persuaded by caveators' contention that the authorship of the phrases was conclusively shown by caveators' expert testimony. Several other witnesses testified to their understanding that Mr. Allen added the phrase about "wife Valerie" after the will was initially executed. Moreover, it was not disputed that Mr. Allen died some eight years after writing the main body of the will, and had suffered a stroke before his death. Under these circumstances, Mr. Allen's handwriting may have changed between the original execution of the will and any later additions. We note that the handwriting expert had not examined any other exemplars of Mr. Allen's handwriting.
Generally, the issue of whether a holographic will is entirely in the testator's handwriting is a question for the jury. In re Will of Wall, 216 N.C. 805, 5 S.E.2d 837 (1939) ( ); In re Will of Penley, 95 N.C.App. 655, 383 S.E.2d 385 (1989) ( ), disc. review denied, 326 N.C. 48, 389 S.E.2d 93 (1990). The issue remains a jury question notwithstanding evidence to the contrary. In re Will of Gatling, 234 N.C. 561, 68 S.E.2d 301 (1951) ( ). We conclude that sufficient evidence was presented to submit to the jury the question of whether Mr. Allen wrote each word of the will, and that caveators were not entitled to a directed verdict on this basis.
Caveators argue next that if the evidence raises a doubt regarding the authorship of certain words, then the will must have the same meaning with or without the challenged words. We disagree. The North Carolina Supreme Court has held that:
When all the words appearing on a paper in the handwriting of the deceased person are sufficient, as in the instant case, to constitute a last will and testament, the mere fact that other words appear thereon, not in such handwriting, but not essential to the meaning of the words in such handwriting, cannot be held to defeat the intention of the deceased, otherwise clearly expressed, that such paper writing is and shall be his last will and testament.
In re Will of Parsons, 207 N.C. 584, 587, 178 S.E. 78, 80 (1935), (quoting In re Will of Lowrance, 199 N.C. 782, 785, 155 S.E. 876, 878 (1930)). Thus, in North Carolina, if the words written by the testator are sufficient to constitute a valid holographic will, then the will is not invalidated by the presence of other words that are not in his handwriting. Pounds v. Litaker, 235 N.C. 746, 71 S.E.2d 39 (1952) ( ); In re Will of Wallace, 227 N.C. 459, 42 S.E.2d 520 (1947) ( ). If the challenged words are not essential to the will's meaning, they are deemed surplusage. In re Will of Lowrance, 199 N.C. 782, 155 S.E. 876 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bynum v. Whitley, No. COA07-451 (N.C. App. 2/5/2008)
...Bryant v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 313 N.C. 362, 379-81, 329 S.E.2d 333, 343-44 (1985); but see In re Will of Allen, 148 N.C. App. 526, 529, 559 S.E.2d 556, 558 (2002) ("The trial court's ruling on a directed verdict motion is addressed to the court's discretion, and will not be overt......
-
State v. Allison, No. COA08-461 (N.C. App. 11/18/2008)
...Pattern Jury Instructions" so long as the pattern instruction "is an accurate summary of the law." In re the Will of Allen, 148 N.C. App. 526, 533, 559 S.E.2d 556, 560 (2002). In general, jury instructions must be supported by the evidence. State v. Dammons, 293 N.C. 263, 272, 237 S.E.2d 83......
-
State v. Page, No. COA07-699 (N.C. App. 4/1/2008)
...Carolina Pattern Jury Instructions'" so long as the pattern instruction "is an accurate summary of the law." In re Will of Allen, 148 N.C. App. 526, 533, 559 S.E.2d 556, 560 (2002) (quoting Caudill v. Smith, 117 N.C. App. 64, 70, 450 S.E.2d 8, 13 (1994), disc. review denied, 339 N.C. 610, 4......