Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

HORRY v. Woodbury

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided April 15, 2008No. COA07-477Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMcCULLOUGH, Judge

Becausé I find that the majority departs substantially from well-settled estate planning precedent and disregards express statutory provisions intended to prevent fraud, I respectfully dissent.

I. Standing

First, I disagree with the majority that plaintiff lacks standing. The very case upon which the majority relies, Spivey v. Godfrey, *676258 N.C. 676, 129 S.E.2d 253 (1963), recognizes that a beneficiary does have standing to bring an action for conversion against an administrator without making any demands on the administrator or petitioning for his removal. Spivey stands for the proposition…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Lake Mary Ltd. Partnership v. JohnstonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2001
  2. Smith v. SmithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1961
  3. Spivey v. GodfreySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
  4. Honeycutt v. Farmers & Merchants BankCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1997
  5. Hutchins v. DowellCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2000

8 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