Walker v. Foley
Decision Date | 18 October 2022 |
Docket Number | COA22-27 |
Citation | 878 S.E.2d 683 (Table) |
Parties | Robert Christopher WALKER, Plaintiff, v. Daniel Joseph FOLEY, Jr., Glenda T. Foley, Stephen T. Foley, Sharon M. Foley, Michael D. Foley, and Carolyn E. Foley, Defendants. |
Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
¶ 1 Robert Christopher Walker (Plaintiff) in his individual capacity and as Executor of the Estate of William Foley (Decedent) appeals from Judgment entered 23 October 2019 declaring Stephen T. Foley, Sharon M. Foley, Michael D. Foley, and Carolyn E. Foley (collectively Defendants) the owners of Decedent's interest in certain real property by operation of intestate succession. The Record before us tends to reflect the following:
¶ 2 On 1 October 1997, Decedent executed his Last Will and Testament (Will). Plaintiff is the Executor and sole beneficiary under the Will. Defendants are Decedent's brothers and their spouses.
¶ 3 The Will itself was comprised of seven Articles, which in relevant part provide:
The Will contains no express devise of Decedent's real property. The Will also contains no residuary clause. Decedent died on 26 November 2013. Addended to the Will is a statement listing insurance policies, the location of Deeds to a lot and house, and Decedent's wishes for his burial.
¶ 4 Decedent died on 26 November 2013, and the Will was subsequently admitted to probate with the Craven County Clerk of Superior Court. At the time of his death, Decedent had an interest in three parcels of real estate. Decedent and Plaintiff each owned a one-half interest as tenants in common in two pieces of property—one in Craven County and one in Carteret County. Decedent and Plaintiff also each owned an interest in a third property—also located in Craven County—along with two of the Defendants.
¶ 5 Plaintiff commenced this action on 23 March 2017 by filing a Complaint against Defendants seeking an equitable lien and accounting related to the real property in Carteret County. This Complaint alleged upon information and belief that the Will failed to devise Decedent's interest in real property and that Decedent's interest in the real property passed to Defendants by way of intestate succession. On 9 June 2017, Defendants filed an Answer and Counterclaim seeking monetary damages from Plaintiff.
¶ 6 On 15 March 2018, the trial court granted Plaintiff leave to file an Amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint, filed 23 March 2018, now included a claim for Declaratory Judgment declaring the Will ambiguous and that the Will, in fact, devised Decedent's real property interests to Plaintiff. In the alternative, Plaintiff again sought relief against Defendants—including claims for contribution, equitable and statutory liens, and unjust enrichment. In response, Defendants filed an Answer to the Amended Complaint and reasserted their pre-existing counterclaim.
¶ 7 On 11 June 2019, Defendants filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Declaratory Judgment claim. The trial court denied the Motion by Order signed 21 August 2019.2 The case then proceeded to a bench trial solely on Plaintiff's claim for Declaratory Judgment during the 26 August 2019 session of Craven County Superior Court.
¶ 8 Following the bench trial, the trial court entered Judgment on 23 October 2019 in favor of Defendants. The trial court concluded the Will was unambiguous and indicated a plain intent not to leave Decedent's interest in real property to Plaintiff, and, instead, Decedent's real property interests passed to Defendants by intestate succession. The trial court, thus, decreed the Will did not devise Decedent's interest in real property and Decedent's brothers (Defendants Daniel, Stephen, and Michael Foley) are the owners of Decedent's interest in the three real properties by operation of intestate succession.
¶ 9 On 20 March 2020, Plaintiff filed a voluntary dismissal of the remaining claims asserted in the Amended Complaint. On 20 September 2021, Defendants voluntarily dismissed their counterclaim. On 20 October 2021, Plaintiff filed the operative Notice of Appeal.3
¶ 10 The parties’ respective dismissals of their remaining claims render the trial court's Judgment on Plaintiff's Declaratory Judgment claim a final judgment which may be appealed pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27(b)(1). See generally Combs & Assocs. v. Kennedy , 147 N.C. App. 362, 367, 555 S.E.2d 634, 638 (2001) () (citations omitted). Plaintiff's Notice of Appeal was filed 30 days following Defendants’ voluntary dismissal of their counterclaim and was, as such, timely. See N.C.R. App. P. 3(c). Therefore, this Court has appellate jurisdiction over this appeal.
¶ 11 The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in concluding Decedent's Will was not ambiguous and, therefore, could not be interpreted to devise Decedent's interests in real property to Plaintiff.
¶ 12 Nelson v. Bennett , 204 N.C. App. 467, 470, 694 S.E.2d 771, 774 (2010) (citation and quotation marks omitted). "Unchallenged findings of fact are presumed to be supported by competent evidence and are binding on appeal." In re Estate of Harper , 269 N.C. App. 213, 215, 837 S.E.2d 602, 604 (2020) (citation and quotation marks omitted). The trial court's conclusions of law are, however, reviewed de novo. Id. "The interpretation of a will's language is a matter of law," Brawley v. Sherrill , 267 N.C. App. 131, 133, 833 S.E.2d 36, 38 (citation omitted), appeal dismissed , 373 N.C. 587, 835 S.E.2d 463 (2019), which we review de novo, see Treadaway v. Payne , 2021-NCCOA-535, ¶ 13, 279 N.C. App. 664, 668.
¶ 13 "When the parties place nothing before the court to prove the intention of the testator, other than the will itself, they are simply disputing the interpretation of the language which is a question of law." Brawley , 267 N.C. App. at 133, 833 S.E.2d at 38 (quoting Cummings v. Snyder , 91 N.C. App. 565, 568, 372 S.E.2d 724, 725 (1988) ). "A pa...
To continue reading
Request your trial