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 *473 relief are involved in both this case and a caveat proceеding 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 cоurt’s order in light of the record and the applicable law, we conclude that the trial court’s order should be affirmed.
I. Background
A. Substantive Facts
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 thе 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. Shoаf’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 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.
B. Procedural History
After Ms. Shoaf’s death, the Forsyth County Clerk admitted to probate a document dated 18 October 2006 and entitled the “Last Will *474 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 makе 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 Dеfendant 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.
II. Legal Analysis
A. Standard of Review
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 сivil 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
*475
law, the trial court’s refusal to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint is subject to
do novo
review.
Transp. Servs. of N.C., Inc. v. Wake Cnty. Bd. of Educ.,
B. Prior Pending Action
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 persuаsive.
“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,
The caveat proceeding initiated by Plaintiffs seeks a judgment that the 18 October 2006 will lacks validity on the grounds that Ms. Shoaf lacked the mental capacity to make a will at the time of its execution and that the execution of the contested will was procured by undue influence on the part of Defendant. “A person has testamentary capacity within the meaning of the law if he has a clear understanding of the nature and extent of his act, of the kind and value of the property devised, of the persons who are the natural objects of his bounty, and of the manner in which he desires to dispose of property to be distributed[.]”
In re Staub’s Will,
*477
In their separate civil action, on the other hand, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant improperly obtained possessiоn of some of Ms. Shoaf’s assets during her lifetime; converted in excess of $100,000 in funds and various items of personal property to his own use; engaged in constructive fraud by effectuating various transactions involving Ms. Shoaf for his own benefit; and took advantage of Ms. Shoaf’s declining mental and physical faculties to obtain property to which he was not entitled. “The simple definition of conversion is ‘an unauthorized assumрtion and exercise of the right of ownership over goods or personal chattels belonging to another, to the alteration of their condition or the exclusion of an owner’s rights.’ ”
Mace v. Pyatt,
*478 In urging us to reach a contrary result, Defendant argues that the separate civil action and the caveat “both concern four central issues,” which Defendant characterizes as (1) the validity of the 18 October 2006 will; (2) whether Defendаnt owed a fiduciary duty to Ms. Shoaf; (3) whether the contested will was procured by Defendant’s undue influence; and (4) the extent to which Ms. Shoaf was competent to execute a will on 18 October 2006. However, a proper resolution of the issues before the trial court in the caveat proceeding does not require consideration of the extent to which Defendant owed a fiduciary duty to Ms. Shoaf. Similarly, a proper resolution of the issues raised by the separate civil action does not require a determination of the validity of the contested will, whether Ms. Shoaf was mentally competent to execute a will on 18 October 2006, or whether the execution of the contested will was procured by undue influence. Although both proceedings do, at a very general level, arise from interactions betwеen Defendant and Ms. Shoaf, the caveat proceeding focuses exclusively on Ms. Shoaf’s mental state on 18 October 2006 and the extent of Defendant’s influence over the execution of the contested will while the separate civil action is focused exclusively on whether Defendant unlawfully or improperly obtained ownership of Ms. Shoaf’s assets during her lifetime. As a result, we conclude, contrаry to Defendant’s contention, that the two proceedings are not focused on the same “four central issues.”
In addition, Defendant cites
Baars v. Campbell Univ., Inc.,
Thus, as the trial court appears to have recognized, the caveat challenges the validity of the contested will while the separate civil action asserts claims arising from Defendant’s involvement in transactions that occurred during Ms. Shoaf’s lifetime for the purpose of seeking to have certain property returned to Ms. Shoaf’s estate. Simply put, the two cases involve different issues and different requests for relief. For that reason, we conclude that the trial court did not err by denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ separate civil action on the basis of the prior pending action doctrine.
C. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Secondly, Defendant argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter of Plaintiffs’ separate civil action because it constituted an “impermissible collateral аttack” on the validity of Ms. Shoaf’s will.
Johnson v. Stevenson,
In October 2006, defendant took Irene to a local lawyer . . . and defendant caused Irene to execute a will that left half of her property to defendant. Defendant knew that, by October 2006, Irene’s doctors had diagnosed Irene as suffering from dementia and mеmory loss and that Irene lacked the mental capacity to make and execute a will. This episode was *480 part of a continuing pattern whereby defendant breached his fiduciary duty to Irene and took advantage of her declining mental health, all to his benefit.
The inclusion of this allegation to the effect that, as part of a continuing pattern of attempting to obtain Ms. Shoafs assets, Defendаnt had Ms. Shoaf execute a will that benefitted him personally, despite knowing that she was in no condition to do so, represents nothing more than an assertion of alleged fact and does not constitute an attempt to obtain the entry of a judgment invalidating the contested will. On the contrary, the complaint that Plaintiffs filed in the separate civil action does not seek a determination of the validity of thе contested will or require the trial court to make such a determination in the course of deciding other issues. As a result, given that the “collateral attack” argument is the only basis upon which Defendant has challenged the trial court’s jurisdiction over the subject matter implicated in Plaintiffs’ separate civil action, we hold that the trial court did not err by denying Defendant’s request that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
D. Stay
Finally, Defendant argues that the trial court erred by failing to stay Plaintiffs’ civil action until the caveat proceeding had been resolved. According to Defendant, “the Caveat and Civil Action will be tried on the same issues and staying the Civil Action will avoid inconsistent verdicts on those issues.” More particularly, Defendant contends that, in the absence of the requested stay, the jury in the caveat proceeding might find that the contested will was valid and the jury in the separate civil action might find that Ms. Shoaf lacked the mental capacity to properly execute certain other disputed instruments at various times between 2005 and 2009. However, since the validity of the contested will is not at issue in the separate civil action, the jury empanelled to decide that proceeding would not neеd to determine whether Ms. Shoaf had the capacity to execute that instrument. Moreover, “the competency or incompetency of a testator to engage in or understand any complicated matter or transaction in business is not a proper test of his mental capacity to execute a will.”
In re Will of Maynard,
*481 III. Conclusion
Thus, for the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the trial court did not err by denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ civil action on the basis of the prior pending action doctrine or for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or by denying Defendant’s motion to stay the separate civil action pending resolution of the caveat proceeding. As a result, the trial court’s order should be and hereby is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
Notes
. Although Bryan Thompson was named as a party defendant in his capacity as representative of Irene Shoaf’s estate, Mr. Thompson is a “nominal defendant against whom no judgment is demanded and no relief asked.”
Barnhardt v. Smith,
. Although the order from which Defendant has noted an appeal is clearly interlocutory, this Court has held that the denial of a dismissal motion predicated on the prior pending action doctrine is immediately appealable.
Stevens v. Henry,
. The comments made in Baars concerning the prior pending action issue are, arguably, dicta, given that we had already upheld the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ separate civil action on statute of limitations grounds.