Court Opinion

ID: 9812811
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:48:48.042334+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:26:42.142173
License: Public Domain

Stacy, C. J.,
concurring: The case, briefly stated, is this:
1. On 8 September, 1931, the Cabarrus Bank and Trust Company and Mrs. Annie L. Cannon were duly appointed by the clerk of the Superior Court of Cabarrus County guardians of the estate of Anne Cannon Eeynolds II, an infant at that time a little over a year old.
2. It is alleged that said infant has certain rights in the testamentary trusts established by the wills of her paternal grandparents, E. J. Eeyn-olds and Katherine S. Johnston, which, if still subsisting, amount to approximately $12,000,000.
3. It is further alleged that at the July Criminal Term, 1931, Forsyth Superior Court, in a consent proceeding, an agreement was ostensibly authorized whereby said infant was to get $500,000 in settlement of her interests in said testamentary trusts.
*2944. It is the opinion of the Gabarras Bank and Trust Company that the alleged contract sought to be approved by the decree in the Forsyth County proceeding is null and void, in so far as it attempts to deal with the rights of Anne Cannon Reynolds II, because the matter was not properly before the court and no one was legally authorized to enter into the alleged contract on behalf of said infant, and for other reasons.
5. Conceiving it to be its duty, therefore, in the discharge of its obligation as guardian, suggestion was made to the coguardian that they seek to have the decree in the Forsyth County proceeding vacated and set aside.
6. Upon disagreement between the guardians as. to their duty in the premises, the Cabarrus Bank and Trust Company applied to the Superior Court for instruction and authority to proceed as it feels in duty bound to do.
1. Mrs. Annie L. Cannon, coguardian, sets out in her response and counter-petition a “tentative proposition,” which, if accepted and carried out, it is alleged, will result in said infant’s estate profiting to the extent of an additional $1,500,000. This “tentative proposition” is based on a proposed family agreement, and that the matters, suggested on the hearing, be not further stirred.
8. The court being of opinion that, under the existing conditions, the best interests of the infant ward would be subserved by accepting the “tentative proposition” of the respondent, and not by granting the prayer of the petitioner, denied the same, and instructed the guardians “to do all things such as appearing in court, conferring with interested parties, and all other things necessary or expedient to bring about and make effective the tentative proposition and family agreement referred to in said response and counter-petition.”
The ruling was evidently based upon the assumption that the Forsyth decree is valid, otherwise the amount probably surrendered is disproportionate to the amount tentatively offered. But the validity of the Forsyth decree was not before the court for determination. The.question was whether sufficient showing had been made to warrant the instruction that the validity of the decree should be challenged. Apparently the showing was such as to justify the court in informing itself upon the validity of this decree before finally foreclosing the rights of the infant ward in the respect suggested.
Nevertheless, it is said the practical certainty of a million and a half under the circumstances disclosed by the record, is better for the infant than the uncertainty of the quest for twelve millions. The matter was not presently before the court with sufficient knowledge and in such shape as to call for the exercise of its discretion on the acceptance or rejection of this tentative proposition. The two guardians are the only parties to this proceeding, and they alone in their representative capacity *295would be bound by tbe judgment. No ward can complain if bis guardian in good faitb and in tbe exercise of bis best judgment pursues tbe mandate of tbe law and loses a tentative offer of settlement sucb as bere disclosed, but be might question a departure from established rules of procedure.