Redwine v. Clodfelter, 673.

• Decision Date: 22 May 1946
• Docket Number: No. 673.,673.
• Citation: 226 N.C. 366,38 S.E.2d 203
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: REDWINE et al. v. CLODFELTER et al.

226 N.C. 366

38 S.E.2d 203

REDWINE et al.

v.CLODFELTER et al.

No. 673.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

May 22, 1946.

Appeal from Superior Court, Davidson County; Hubert E. Olive, Special Judge.

Action by R. G. Redwine and others against Robert F. Clodfelter and others, minors, by their guardians ad litem, for approval of a family settlement of controversies respecting an estate devised in trust by the will of J. D. Redwine, deceased. From a decree approving the settlementand directing the executors to settle the estate accordingly, the guardians ad litem appeal.

Affirmed.

Petition for approval of a family settlement of a controversy respecting an estate devised in trust and for instructions.

On September 28, 1945, J. D. Redwine died leaving a last will and testament in which he devised the bulk of his estate, of the net value of approximately $115,-000, in trust. He directed his trustees to pay (1) one-sixth of the income of the trust estate to the two children of a deceased son until their forty-fifth birthday when they were to receive the principal. Each was to draw $3,000 on his thirty-fifth birthday and a like amount on his fortieth birthday; (2) one-sixth of said income to his son R. G. Redwine for life, with provision for maintaining a minimum monthly payment; at his death one-sixth of the principal was to be distributed among his named grandchildren; and (3) the balance of the income to each of four other children, one-fourth (one-sixth of the total) to each during his or her life. Upon the death of any one of said children one-sixth of the principal estate was to be paid over to the children of such child.

Certain of the children became dissatisfied. In respect thereto the court made the following finding, to wit:

"That one of the heirs, R. G. Redwine, has threatened and intended to file a caveat to the will of J. D. Redwine; that the said R. G. Redwine has employed some, and retained other, attorneys to represent him in said proceeding; that said attorneys have actually prepared the necessary papers to begin said proceeding; that some 44 substantial and highly regarded citizens of Davidson County have signed a paper indicating that they would give testimony favorable to the caveator; that the Executors have employed attorneys and have made arrangements to employ other attorneys in the event said caveat is filed; and that some of the other heirs, devisees and legatees have indicated that when said caveat is filed that they would become caveators. The Court finds as facts that the disputes involved in the threatened litigation are bona fide disputes, the parties thereto making adverse contentions in good faith; that the determination of the rights of the parties by litigation would be long, expensive and wasteful; that the result of a trial in the Superior Court would be uncertain; that the losing parties would doubtless appeal to the Supreme Court; that further trials might be necessary before reaching a conclusion of the litigation; and that said will is ambiguous and would be difficult to administer without frequently resorting to the courts for judicial interpretation and construction, thereby creating additional expense against the estate." (Finding of Fact No. IX.)

"That if said caveat proceeding were begun, it would act as a constant barrier to the establishment of family peace; that the trial of said case would doubtless attract wide attention and publicity and would tend to expose to the public gaze intimate family affairs which should be guarded within the family circle; that such a trial would further disrupt and tend to destroy the peace, honor and dignity of the family, resulting in the embarrassment and humiliation of the members thereof; and that such a trial would plunge the family into litigation which would doubtless extend for a long period of time and be attended with an enormous amount of expense, uncertainty and risk, thereby either defeating or seriously jeopardizing said trust." (Finding of Fact No. X.)

When it became apparent that long and costly litigation over the validity of. the will was imminent, members of the family sought an amicable and friendly adjustment of the family differences and a settlement of the estate acceptable to all. The conferences which followed resulted in a family agreement executed by all the adult children and grandchildren, parties in interest, both those who are immediate beneficiaries under the trust and ultimate takers.

The trust agreement provides that $40,-000 shall be set apart and invested by the trustees for the use and benefit of the five sets of grandchildren named in thewill, to be paid one-fifth to each set upon the death of their parent, child of testator. The income is to accumulate and become part of the principal estate. The balance is to be divided as provided in the agreement. It is estimated that the principal and income of this trust, when subject to disbursement, will net the ultimate takers approximately as much as they would receive under the original trust.

Thereupon the executors, joined by all the adult parties in interest, instituted this action to obtain the approval of the proposed family settlement. All the issue of the children of testator, in esse and in posse, are made parties defendant and are duly represented by guardians ad litem.

At the hearing the court below, after finding the material facts, concluded: "That under the circumstances now existing, the Court finds that the settlement herein proposed is for the best interest of all the parties, including all the present, prospective and contingent beneficiaries; that such settlement would prevent dissipation and waste and would more nearly accomplish...