Legal Opinion

Matter of Estate of Outen

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided November 19, 1985No. 8526SC451PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HEDRICK, Chief Judge.

Respondents contend that the assistant clerk erred in finding that the agreement allegedly entered into between the dissenting widow and the co-executors was not a “family settlement agreement” and in allowing the dissent pursuant to Article 1 of Chapter 30 of the General Statutes of North Carolina.

“To establish the right to dissent, a spouse must make a timely filing pursuant to G.S. 30-2, and must show an entitlement to that right under G.S. 30-1.” In re Kirkman, 302 N.C. 164, 166, 273 S.E. 2d 712, 714 (1981). The right time, manner and effect of the filing and…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. In Re Will of PendergrassSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
  2. Matter of Estate of KirkmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
  3. Matter of Estate of SwinsonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1983
  4. In re SnipesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980
  5. Holt v. HoltSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1981

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Matter of Estate of PateCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1995
  2. Brewer v. BrewerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2005
  3. In Re the Estate of Mary A. RileyArizona Supreme Court · 2013
  4. In re the Estate of RileyCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2011
  5. Brewer v. BrewerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2005

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API