Court Opinion

ID: 9570075
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:19:59.209652+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:04:51.644431
License: Public Domain

HUDSON, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur with the analysis of the issues pertaining to Frances Long’s testimony and the Testamentary Trust. However, because I believe that the trial judge properly exercised his discretion in the management of the trial by having the jury first consider the validity of the 1989 will, and because I see no reversible error in the trial, I would affirm the judgment.
*163The majority asserts that, in managing the litigation of the caveat to the 1989 will, the trial judge should have first had the jury determine whether the 1967 will had been revoked. Had the jury ruled that the 1967 will was revoked, goes the reasoning, the caveators, who claimed an interest in the estate as beneficiaries of that will, would have had no standing to litigate the caveat. Since the jury ultimately determined that the 1967 will had been revoked, the caveators had no standing to bring the caveat in the first place, and thus, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the entire caveat proceeding. As a result, the majority reasons, we should treat this matter as if no caveat had been filed, so that the 1989 will stands unchallenged as the last will and testament of Mr. Barnes.
I disagree with this analysis for several reasons. First, I believe that, even though the caveators carried the burden of overcoming a presumption that the 1967 will had been revoked (because they possessed only a copy), under North Carolina case law as it existed at the time, it appeared that they had standing to bring the caveat. When they filed it, they thereby invoked the jurisdiction of the court. Second, by bringing the caveat, the caveators triggered the court’s duty to determine the validity of the 1989 will, which is the one the caveat challenged, and the court acted within its discretion in having the jury first address the issues pertaining to that will. Third, because the will caveat is a proceeding in rem, I do not believe that the jury’s ultimate determination that the 1967 will had been revoked should be held to erase the subject matter jurisdiction of the superior court over the entire proceeding ab initio. Fourth, I believe that the heirs here could have timely filed a caveat, because they were not timely notified of the proceedings here. And finally, whether or not they could have filed or did in fact file such a caveat or align with a pending caveat is irrelevant, because if neither will was valid, they would inherit by operation of law.
According to the applicable statute any person “interested in the estate” may file a caveat within three years after the will is submitted for probate. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 31-32 (2001). Persons claiming under a prior will, such as the caveators here, are such interested persons. Sternberger v. Tannenbaum, 273 N.C. 658, 674, 161 S.E. 2d 116, 127 (1968). Whenever persons claiming under a prior will institute a caveat, they are potential, not certain, beneficiaries of the estate in question. Even if their claimed interest in the estate ultimately is not upheld, they nonetheless have standing to litigate the issues. Similarly, the caveators here, who claimed an interest in the estate by *164virtue of an earlier will, had standing to litigate the issues, even though their interest ultimately was not upheld. Thus, by filing the caveat, the 1967 Will Beneficiaries properly instituted these proceedings, and invoked the subject matter jurisdiction of the clerk and the superior court.
When they did so, they placed at issue the validity of the 1989 will.
“When a caveat is filed the superior court acquires jurisdiction of the whole matter in controversy, including both the question of probate and the issue of devisavit vel non (citation omitted). Devisavit vel non requires a finding of whether or not the decedent made a will and, if so, whether any of the scripts before the court is that will.” In re Will of Hester, 320 N.C. 738, 745, 360 S.E.2d 801, 806 (1987), reh’g denied, 321 N.C. 300, 362 S.E.2d 780 (1987) (citing In re Will of Charles, 263 N.C. 411, 139 S.E.2d 588 (1965)). Thus, in a case such as this one, where there are presented multiple scripts purporting to be the decedent’s last will and testament, the issue of devisavit vel non should be resolved in a single caveat proceeding in which the jury may be required to answer numerous sub-issues . . . [T]he trial court is vested with broad discretion to structure the trial, including the discretion to sever the issues and submit them separately to the same jury....
In re Will of Dunn, 129 N.C. App. 321, 325-26, 500 S.E.2d 99, 102 (1998), disc. review denied, 348 N.C. 693, 511 S.E.3d 645 (1998). It is well established that the trial court has broad discretion in the management of the trial, and I believe that the trial judge here exercised that discretion properly. As in Dunn and Hester, the trial court properly took up the matter of the later will first, since if that will were found valid, it would constitute the last will and testament of the decedent, thereby mooting the issues pertaining to the earlier will. As the Supreme Court pointed out in Hester:
[T]he interests of judicial economy and convenience were well served by separate presentation of issues as to the 1983 script. Had the jury determined that the 1983 script was in fact a valid last will and testament, the issues as to the earlier scripts would have been mooted and the proceeding need not have continued. The judge logically may have considered submission of the issues as to other scripts premature until the [later will] issues were answered.
*165In re Will of Hester, 320 N.C. 738, 743-44, 360 S.E.2d 801, 805 (1987), reh’g denied, 321 N.C. 300, 362 S.E.2d 780 (1987). Thus, I do not believe that the trial court erred or abused its discretion by submitting to the jury the issues pertaining to the 1989 will first.
The majority here, however, addresses the issue of the 1967 will first, concludes that it was revoked, and that the caveators thus had no standing to challenge the 1989 will. By addressing the 1967 will first, and upholding the determination that it had been revoked, the majority implicitly holds that the trial judge abused his discretion by taking up the 1989 will first. Since I do not believe that he did, I cannot concur with this analysis. Having concluded as I have that the trial court properly addressed first the matter placed in issue by the caveat (the 1989 will), I do not believe that it is appropriate for us to decide the issues based on what could have been the outcome had the trial judge exercised his discretion differently. He did not, and I believe that we are bound to address the issues as they come to us. As long as the 1967 Will Beneficiaries continued to claim under that will, which they did throughout the first phase of the trial, they had standing to do so, and the jury’s verdict is a valid determination of the issues at that phase.
If this Court chooses to adopt a new rule, specifically holding that when caveators produce only a copy of the will under which they claim, they must, as a threshold matter, rebut the presumption of revocation, the Court may certainly do so. With such a rule, I do not necessarily disagree. However, no such rule had been articulated at the time of this trial by our Courts, and none of the cases cited by the majority on this point involve will contests, except Casstevens, 99 N.C. App. 337, 392 S.E.2d 776 (1990), in which no caveat at all had been filed. Thus, I do not believe the trial judge abused his discretion in not divining such a rule and acting accordingly. In light of all the cases giving broad discretion in trial management, I believe he acted reasonably.
This is especially clear in light of the cases explaining the significance of a proceeding in rem. Our Supreme Court has stated that in a will caveat the
“proceeding is in rem, in which the court pronounces its judgment as to whether the res, i.e., the script itself, is the will of the deceased. In re Hinton, 180 N.C. 206, 104 S.E.2d 341 (1987).” Brissie v. Craig, [232 N.C. 701, 62 S.E.2d 330], supra. The will is the res.
*166In re Will of Charles, 263 N.C. 411, 415, 139 S.E.2d 588, 591 (1965). As the Court in Charles pointed out, when a will is presented, it “stands as the testator’s will and only will, until challenged and reversed in a [caveat] proceeding.” Id. Here, once the caveat was filed by persons claiming an interest in the estate through a prior will, the court acquired jurisdiction over the matter of the validity of the 1989; that will became the res at issue.
Our Supreme Court has also explained, though not often, the difference between a proceeding in rem, and a typical proceeding between litigants.
This is a proceeding in rem and the statute confers jurisdiction on the clerk of the court. There are no parties, strictly speaking, certainly none who can withdraw or take a nonsuit, and thus put the matter where it was at the start, as in actions between individuals. A nonsuit in the latter case affects no one but the litigants; in the former, creditors, legatees and distributees are interested and they are stayed until the question of testacy or intestacy is determined. The court having jurisdiction, public policy and our statutes require that this preliminary question [of testacy] should be determined as soon as practicable, and require the court to do it, regardless of objecting persons.
In re Will of Westfeldt, 188 N.C. 702, 705, 125 S.E. 531, 533 (1924) (citations and quotation marks omitted). None of the cases cited as authority involved a will caveat, and I do not believe the analysis of standing of the parties applies here. No authority has been cited and none found Imlding that in a North Carolina will caveat proceeding, the standing of individuals claiming under a copy of a will must be determined first. In fact, the presumption that the earlier will has been revoked tends to support the logic of first determining the validity of the later will, since it makes it more likely that the later will is the last will. Thus, I believe that once the caveat to the 1989 will was filed by persons claiming an interest in the estate through a prior will, the court acquired jurisdiction over the res and the court was required to proceed as it did, to resolve the issue of devisavit vel non.
The authorities cited, which address the role of standing of the parties in conferring jurisdiction on the court, are not applicable to this case, in my opinion. Instead, I believe that when a person fits within the definition of an interested party under G.S. § 32-31 by claiming under a prior will, and that person timely files a caveat, the *167court acquires jurisdiction of the res. To hold that whenever a caveator claims under a prior will, which is later determined to- have been revoked, the court thereby loses jurisdiction over the issue of a later will to which the caveat was addressed, would render meaningless all of these cases in which that has happened. It would also produce the illogical result that beneficiaries under such a later will would inherit under an instrument which the jury has found was made by a testator at a time when he lacked the mental capacity to do so.
The case here is not distinguishable in any meaningful way from Hester, in which the caveators challenged a later will on grounds of lack of mental capacity and alleged their interest from a prior will. As noted by the majority, this Court stated:
[P]ropounders contend that [a] beneficiary under a prior will does have standing to caveat a will but such a beneficiary must, in the same proceeding, prove the interest alleged. We disagree. ... If the facts be as caveators allege, they are interested in the estate. Because the proceeding is in rem, the proceeding must go on until the issue devisavit vel non is appropriately answered.
In re Will of Hester, 84 N.C. App. 585, 594, 353 S.E.2d 643, 650, (internal citations and quotation marks omitted), rev’d on other grounds, 320 N.C. 738, 360 S.E.2d 801 (1987). The majority distinguishes this case because here the caveators produced a copy, rather than the original, of the 1967 will, thereby giving rise to a presumption that the will had been revoked. I do not believe that this presumption alters the jurisdiction of the court over the res, once the caveat has been filed by persons who claim an interest. It may change their burden of proof on that issue, but it does not change the fundamental nature of the proceeding. Thus, I believe Hester is controlling on this point.
And finally, I disagree that since the heirs at law neither filed a caveat nor aligned themselves with the caveators or propounders to the 1989 will, they have no legal recourse. On 23 January 2001, less than a week before the matter was scheduled for trial, notice was sent to the heirs at law, informing them that a caveat had been filed to the 1989 will and that the caveators intended to probate the 1967 will. The notice did not indicate that the matter was set for trial, nor did it indicate when the heirs should respond, if they chose to do so. The will caveat trial began 29 January 2001, and the judgment was signed 22 February 2001. On 26 February 2001, the lawyers for the *168heirs entered their notices of appearance, and a few days later, gave “Notice of Joinder per Rule 5.” Then they filed briefs as Appellees in this Court.
Although the heirs acted promptly upon being notified, the judgment on the caveat had already been entered. Thus, it would have been impossible for them to intervene and align themselves at that point. As in Hester, these heirs were not bound by the judgment and could have filed a caveat; in fact, I believe they still can, within three years from the notice. However, since the Courts have held repeatedly that all issues should be determined in one proceeding, they acted properly in appearing as they did. By the time that they did so, there was no need to align themselves with either set of beneficiaries, since both of the wills had been rejected by the jury. In my opinion they acted appropriately in appearing and joining when they did as non-aligned appellees. However, whether they had done so or not, they would inherit by operation of law if the judgment is upheld.
In conclusion, I would hold (1) that when the caveat was filed the court acquired jurisdiction of the res; (2) that the trial court acted within its discretion in managing the trial by first addressing the 1989 will; and (3) that the judgment entered upon the jury’s verdicts was proper in all respects.