Legal Opinion

O'Neil v. O'Neil

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided July 24, 1967No. 536PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBobbitt, J.

There are material limitations upon the right to alter the terms of a testamentary trust by a family settlement agreement. Carter v. Kempton, 233 N.C. 1, 62 S.E. 2d 713; Redwine v. Clodfelter, 226 N.C. 366, 38 S.E. 2d 203; Trust Co. v. Buchan, 256 N.C. 142, 123 S.E. 2d 489; Stellings v. Autry, 257 N.C. 303, 126 S.E. 2d 140.

Simply stated, plaintiffs propose a substantial modification of the dispositive provisions of the “Will.”

A will is not an instrument “to be amended or revoked at the instance of devisees who are merely dissatisfied with its provisions.” Denny, J. (later C.J.), in Wagner v.…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Carter v. KemptonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
  2. Redwine v. . ClodfelterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1946
  3. Tise v. . Hicks.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
  4. In Re the Guardianship of ReynoldsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
  5. Stellings v. AutrySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Sigmund Sternberger Foundation, Inc. v. TannenbaumSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
  2. Matter of Estate of BrandonAlaska Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Holt v. HoltSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
  4. Brandon v. Hedland, Fleischer, Friedman & CookeAlaska Supreme Court · 1995
  5. O'Neil v. O'NeilSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967

3 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