In re the Will of James Paul Allen
253 N.C. App. 692
N.C. Ct. App.2017Background
- James Paul Allen executed a typed, attested will on August 29, 2002, leaving property primarily to Rena T. Robinson and, if she predeceased him, creating a life estate in Melvin R. Woolard with remainder to Hope Paiyton Robinson and Christian Ann Robinson (the caveators).
- A handwritten marginal notation on the will reads: “Beginning 7-7-03 do not honor Article IV Void Article IV James Paul Allen.” If effective, it would revoke Article IV and disinherit the caveators.
- After Allen’s death in March 2014 (Rena Robinson predeceased him), Woolard sought probate of the handwritten notation as a holographic codicil; caveators filed a caveat challenging its validity.
- The Clerk transferred the matter to superior court; the trial court granted summary judgment for the propounder (Woolard) treating the notation as a valid holographic codicil.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed de novo and reversed, holding the handwritten notation is not a valid holographic codicil as a matter of law and remanded for entry of summary judgment for the caveators.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Woolard) | Defendant's Argument (Robinsons/caveators) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the handwritten marginal note constitutes a valid holographic codicil that revokes Article IV of the typed will | The marginal notation, in decedent’s handwriting and found among his papers, expresses an intent to revoke Article IV and therefore is a valid holographic codicil | The note is insufficient: it either expresses only a future intent or requires reference to Article IV (typed text) to be understood, so cannot stand alone as a holographic codicil | Reversed: the note is not a valid holographic codicil as a matter of law; summary judgment should be for the caveators |
| Whether there is a genuine factual dispute about handwriting authenticity preventing summary judgment | Affidavits and probate filing support that the note is in decedent’s handwriting and was properly offered for probate | Caveators contested handwriting, arguing factual dispute exists | Court declined to resolve handwriting dispute because, even assuming the writing was the decedent’s, the notation still fails legal requirements for a holographic codicil |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Will of Goodman, 229 N.C. 444 (1948) (upholding handwritten additions on a typed will as a holographic codicil where the handwritten words are meaningful standing alone)
- In re Smith’s Will, 218 N.C. 161 (1940) (holding holographic additions invalid where non-handwritten words are essential to give meaning to the handwriting)
- In re Johnson’s Will, 181 N.C. 303 (1921) (distinguishing present testamentary intent from instructions for a future will)
- Stephens v. McPherson, 88 N.C. App. 251 (1987) (noting that a codicil must express the testator’s present testamentary intent rather than a plan for a future change)