Legal Opinion

In re the Estate of Sturman

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided April 18, 1989No. 8826DC635PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORR, Judge.

I

The first consideration for this Court is whether the procedure for the revocation of the letters testamentary of an administratrix *475as set forth in G.S. 28A-9-1 is an “action” or “special proceeding.” See G.S. 1A-1, Rule 17 (1983). If the revocation matter is an “action” or “special proceeding” under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 17(b), then the Clerk had statutory authority to appoint the guardian ad litem.

Rule 17 provides for the appointment of a guardian ad litem “in actions or special proceedings” where a party is either a plaintiff or a defendant. See G.S. 1A-1, Rule 17(b)(1) and (b)(2).…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Tate v. . MottSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1887
  2. Phil Mechanic Const. Co., Inc. v. HaywoodCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985
  3. In Re Will of HowellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1933
  4. In re StoneSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1918
  5. In Re StoneSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1918

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. In Re the Estate of ParrishCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2001
  2. In Re the Will of DurhamCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2010
  3. NEXSEN PRUET, PLLC v. MartinCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2011

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

Powered by the Exa API