Legal Opinion

In re the Will of Penley

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided September 19, 1989No. 8928SC31PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WELLS, Judge.

Propounders’ principal assignment of error goes to the trial court’s denial of their motion for directed verdict. They argue that caveators did not offer a sufficient writing under the statute to be subject to probate. We disagree. A holographic will is one that (1) is entirely in the testator’s own handwriting, (2) bears the testator’s name in his own handwriting, and (3) was found among the testator’s valuables. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 31-3.4 (1984). Such a writing may be offered for probate only upon the testimony of at least one witness that it was found among the testator’s…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Rice v. WoodCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1986
  2. Alston v. HerrickCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985
  3. In Re Will of WilliamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
  4. In Re the Will of LoftinCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1975

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. In Re Will of SmithCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2003
  2. In Re the Will of AllenCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2002

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

Powered by the Exa API