In re the Est. of James Junior Phillips
251 N.C. App. 99
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Decedent James J. Phillips died May 2, 2007; a will dated April 3, 2007 (the "2007 Will") naming Diane Boswell (propounder) as sole beneficiary was probated shortly after his death.
- Mary Phillips (caveator), a child of the decedent, filed a caveat (Feb. 3, 2010) alleging lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence/duress, and improper execution of the 2007 Will.
- Propounder submitted a 1993 Will and multiple affidavits (including from the attorneys who prepared the wills and acquaintances) asserting decedent was competent and favored propounder; caveator later served four affidavits from relatives contradicting those statements and asserting decedent feared and distrusted propounder and that the 2007 signature was not his.
- Trial court struck the caveator’s four affidavits as untimely and inadmissible, ruled caveator lacked standing, and granted summary judgment to propounder.
- Court of Appeals reversed: held caveator had standing as an heir-at-law; the four affidavits were timely and admissible (including decedent’s declarations relevant to capacity and undue influence); and genuine issues of material fact existed on capacity, undue influence/duress, and proper execution, so summary judgment was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Phillips) | Defendant's Argument (Boswell) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to bring caveat | As heir-at-law, Phillips has interest to challenge the 2007 Will | Caveator lacks standing because she would not take under the 1993 Will propounder submitted | Phillips has standing as a potential beneficiary; trial court erred in dismissing for lack of standing |
| Timeliness of opposing affidavits | Affidavits served 4 days before hearing, complying with Rule 56(c) | Affidavits were untimely and thus properly stricken | Affidavits were timely; striking them on timing grounds was abuse of discretion |
| Admissibility of affidavits (decedent’s declarations) | Affidavits recounting decedent’s statements about distrust and being pressured are admissible to show capacity and undue influence | Statements are hearsay and barred by In re Will of Ball and Rule 802 | Deceased’s declarations (including some post-execution) are admissible on capacity and undue influence issues; trial court erred in excluding them |
| Summary judgment on capacity, undue influence, execution formalities | Affidavits create genuine factual disputes on capacity, undue influence/duress, and signature/execution | Propounder’s affidavits and prior will show no genuine issue | Genuine issues of material fact exist on all three issues; summary judgment was improper and case remanded for trial |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Will of Ball, 225 N.C. 91, 33 S.E.2d 619 (N.C. 1945) (addresses admissibility of deceased’s declarations in will contests)
- In re Will of Jones, 362 N.C. 569, 669 S.E.2d 572 (N.C. 2008) (summary judgment standards in caveat proceedings)
- In re Will of Barnes, 157 N.C. App. 144, 579 S.E.2d 585 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003) (standing of prior-will beneficiaries and in rem nature of caveat proceedings)
- In re Will of Priddy, 171 N.C. App. 395, 614 S.E.2d 454 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005) (challenging formal execution despite notarized/self-proving affidavits)
- In re Estate of Loftin, 285 N.C. 717, 208 S.E.2d 670 (N.C. 1974) (definition and elements of undue influence in will contests)
- In re Will of McNeil, 230 N.C. App. 241, 749 S.E.2d 499 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013) (factors for undue influence and evidentiary approach)
- Seagraves v. Seagraves, 206 N.C. App. 333, 698 S.E.2d 155 (N.C. Ct. App. 2010) (caution urged when granting summary judgment in will-caveat cases)
- In re Will of Brown, 194 N.C. 583, 140 S.E. 192 (N.C. 1927) (admission of testator’s declarations on mental capacity)