Shoaf v. Shoaf
| Decision Date | 20 March 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. COA11–863.,COA11–863. |
| Citation | 727 S.E.2d 301 |
| Parties | David E. SHOAF and Jacqueline S. Cooper, Plaintiffs v. Jeffery S. SHOAF and Bryan C. Thompson, as representative of the Estate of Irene Garwood Shoaf, Defendants. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
727 S.E.2d 301
David E. SHOAF and Jacqueline S. Cooper, Plaintiffs
v.
Jeffery S. SHOAF and Bryan C. Thompson, as representative of the Estate of Irene Garwood Shoaf, Defendants.
No. COA11–863.
Court of Appeals of North Carolina.
March 20, 2012.
[727 S.E.2d 303]
Appeal by defendant from order entered 25 March 2011 by Judge Lindsay R. Davis, Jr., in Forsyth County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 15 December 2011.
Craige Brawley Liipfert & Walker LLP, Winston–Salem, by William W. Walker, for Plaintiffs-appellees.
Wilson Helms & Cartledge, LLP, by G. Gray Wilson, Winston–Salem, and Stuart H. Russell, for Defendants-appellants.
ERVIN, Judge.
Defendant Jeffery S. Shoaf 1 appeals from an order denying his motion to dismiss or to stay an action brought against him by Plaintiffs David E. Shoaf and Jacqueline S. Cooper. On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss this case based on the prior pending action doctrine given that, in Defendant's view, the same parties, issues, and requested relief are involved in both this case and a caveat proceeding instituted by Plaintiffs; on the basis that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter at issue in this case given that Plaintiffs' complaint amounts to an impermissible collateral attack on the validity of a disputed will; and by denying his motion to stay this case until the validity of the disputed will has been resolved in the pending caveat proceeding. After careful consideration of Defendant's challenges to the trial court's order in light of the record and the applicable law, we conclude that the trial court's order should be affirmed.
Irene Shoaf was born on 23 March 1921 and died on 5 October 2009. Plaintiffs are Ms. Shoaf's adult children, while Defendant is her grandson. After Ms. Shoaf's husband died in 1976, she lived alone in Winston–Salem. In 1998, Defendant began living with Ms. Shoaf and assisting her with carrying out various daily activities, including buying her groceries and household supplies, taking her to the doctor, and managing her bank accounts and other financial matters.
In December 2000 and January 2001, Ms. Shoaf conveyed some or all of her residence to Defendant and moved into a condominium, leaving Defendant in sole possession of her former residence. Between 2002 and 2009, Defendant engaged in a variety of transactions involving certain of Ms. Shoaf's assets. In September 2002, Defendant utilized Ms. Shoaf's home to secure a $50,000.00 line of credit. On 23 February 2005, Ms. Shoaf executed a power of attorney naming Defendant as her attorney in fact, and executed a deed transferring a 2.378 acre tract of real property to Defendant. According to this power of attorney, which remained in effect throughout the remainder of her life, Defendant had the authority to act for Ms. Shoaf.
After engaging in these transactions, Defendant married Crystal Shoaf. In April 2005, Defendant and Crystal Shoaf encumbered Ms. Shoaf's home with a deed of trust
[727 S.E.2d 304]
that secured a $214,900.00 loan. Subsequently, Ms. Shoaf's health declined and her mental condition deteriorated. In October, 2006, Defendant took Ms. Shoaf to an attorney's office, where she executed a will in which she left half of her estate to Defendant.
After Ms. Shoaf's death, the Forsyth County Clerk admitted to probate a document dated 18 October 2006 and entitled the “Last Will and Testament of Irene Garwood Shoaf” (“the contested will”), in which Ms. Shoaf left her property to Plaintiffs and Defendant. As of the time of Ms. Shoaf's death, her estate had no assets. On 9 November 2010, Plaintiffs filed a caveat in which they alleged that the contested will lacked validity because Ms. Shoaf did not have “sufficient mental capacity to make and execute a will at the time the document was signed” and because “execution of the document was procured by undue influence.” On 19 November 2010, Plaintiffs filed a separate civil action against Defendant in which they sought compensatory and punitive damages for conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, and constructive fraud and asked to have certain instruments that Ms. Shoaf executed in favor of Defendant set aside or to have a constructive trust in favor of Ms. Shoaf's estate imposed on the property transferred pursuant to those instruments based upon allegations of fraud, Defendant's failure to pay the purchase price, and Ms. Shoaf's lack of mental capacity to enter into these transactions. On 26 January 2011, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss or stay Plaintiffs' separate civil action in which he argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter implicated by Plaintiffs' claims; that Plaintiffs' claims were barred by the prior pending action doctrine; that Plaintiffs had failed to state claims for which relief could be granted; that Plaintiffs' claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations; and that Plaintiffs lacked standing to seek to have assets transferred from Defendant to Ms. Shoaf's estate. On 25 March 2011, the trial court entered an order denying Defendant's motions to dismiss Plaintiffs' separate civil action for an alleged lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the existence of a prior pending action, failure to plead the claims asserted in the complaint with sufficient specificity, and failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted and to stay the separate civil proceeding pending completion of the caveat proceeding. Defendant noted an appeal to this Court from the trial court's order.
In his brief, Defendant contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims on the basis of the prior pending action doctrine; by denying his motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and by failing, in the alternative, to order that Plaintiffs' separate civil action be stayed until resolution of the issues that have been raised in the caveat proceeding. As a result of the fact that Defendant's dismissal motions raise issues of law, the trial court's refusal to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint is subject to de novo review. Transp. Servs. of N.C., Inc. v. Wake Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 198 N.C.App. 590, 593, 680 S.E.2d 223, 225 (2009) (stating that “[t]his Court reviews de novo a trial court's ruling on a motion to dismiss”). However, we review a trial court order denying a request for a stay using an abuse of discretion standard. Lawyers Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. v. Nexsen Pruet Jacobs & Pollard, 112 N.C.App. 353, 356, 435 S.E.2d 571, 573 (1993) (utilizing an abuse of discretion standard to review a trial court's decision to grant a stay pursuant to N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1–75.12).2
[727 S.E.2d 305]
According to Defendant, the caveat proceeding is a prior pending action. Defendant argues that, since the caveat and Plaintiffs' separate civil action involve the same parties and the same legal issues, the caveat bars the maintenance of Plaintiffs' separate civil action. We do not find this argument persuasive.
“Under the law of this state, where a prior action is pending between the same parties for the same subject matter in a court within the state having like jurisdiction, the prior action serves to abate the subsequent action.” Eways v. Governor's Island, 326 N.C. 552, 558, 391 S.E.2d 182, 185 (1990) (citing McDowell v. Blythe Brothers Co., 236 N.C. 396, 398, 72 S.E.2d 860, 862 (1952)) (other citation omitted). “The ‘prior pending action’ doctrine involves ‘essentially the same questions as the outmoded plea of abatement,’ and is, obviously enough, intended to prevent the maintenance of a ‘subsequent action [that] is wholly unnecessary [.]’ ” Jessee v. Jessee, –––N.C.App. ––––, ––––, 713 S.E.2d 28, 37 (2011) (quoting Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Douglas, 148 N.C.App. 195, 197, 557 S.E.2d 592, 593 (2001), and State ex rel. Onslow County v. Mercer, 128 N.C.App. 371, 375, 496 S.E.2d 585, 587 (1998)). “ ‘The ordinary test for determining whether or not the parties and causes are the same for the purpose of abatement by...
To continue reading
Request your trial