From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Betts v. Parrish

North Carolina Court of Appeals
May 1, 1983
62 N.C. App. 77 (N.C. Ct. App. 1983)

Opinion

No. 8210SC525

Filed 3 May 1983

Wills 66 — will construction — contingency not happening Where testator's will devised his real property to his mother for her lifetime and after her death to his wife in fee simple, the will provided that should his mother predecease testator, his real property should go to his wife in fee simple, the will further provided that should his mother and wife both predecease testator, his property should go to two nieces and a nephew, testator's wife predeceased him, and testator and his wife died without issue, the remainder interest in testator's real property did not pass to testator's nieces and nephew under the will but passed to testator's mother by intestate succession. G.S. 31-42 (c)(1)b; G.S. 29-15 (3).

APPEAL by defendants from Godwin, Judge. Judgment entered 24 March 1982 in Superior Court, WAKE County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 12 April 1983.

Moore, Ragsdale, Liggett, Ray and Foley, by John N. Hutson, Jr., for plaintiff appellees.

Kimzey, Smith and McMillan, by Duncan A. McMillan, for defendant appellants.


Judge WHICHARD dissenting.


This is an action for a declaratory judgment construing the will of Russell W. Sanderford. Mr. Sanderford's will provided in part as follows: ITEM TWO

I will and bequeath all of my personal property in equal shares to my wife, Mamie Prince Sanderford, and my mother, Ruby Wilson Ellis; provided that if either should predecease me then the survivor shall receive all of said personal property.

ITEM THREE

I will and devise my house at 134 Maywood Avenue, Raleigh, N.C., and all other real estate that I own to my mother for her lifetime and after her death to my wife, Mamie Prince Sanderford, in fee simple. Should my mother predecease me, then I will and devise said real estate to my wife, Mamie Prince Sanderford, in fee simple.

ITEM FOUR

If my mother and my wife should both predecease me, then I will, devise and bequeath all of my property, real, personal and mixed in equal shares to my nieces and nephew as follows:

One-third interest to Wendy Betts

One-third interest to Angie Betts

One-third interest to Kenneth Wayne O'Neil

The testator's wife predeceased him. He was survived by his mother, defendant Ruby Wilson Ellis, and by his nieces and nephew named in Item Four of his will.

The superior court concluded that the remainder interest in the house and lot at 134 Maywood Avenue lapsed upon the death of the testator's wife, and was devised by Item Four of the will to plaintiffs as tenants in common. It entered judgment declaring that the will devised a life estate to testator's mother and the remainder in fee to plaintiffs.

Defendants appealed.


We do not believe the will of Mr. Sanderford is ambiguous. Item Four provides that in the event his wife and mother should both predecease him, his estate would go to the plaintiffs. This contingency did not happen. It may be that the testator wanted the plaintiffs to have a remainder interest in his house and lot under the contingency that occurred, but he did not say so in his will. We are required to discern the intention of the testator from the plain language of the will. According to this language, the plaintiffs do not take any interest in the house and lot.

The canons of construction which the appellees suggest we should follow, such as a will should be construed as to avoid intestacy, a change in language from paragraph to paragraph should be given some significance, and the intention of the testator must be determined from reading the whole will, have no application. These canons of construction are used when a will is ambiguous. In this case, we hold the will is not ambiguous.

The testator and his wife died without issue. The remainder interest in the testator's real property passes to his mother, Ruby Wilson Ellis. See G.S. 31-42 (c)(1)b and G.S. 29-15 (3). We reverse and remand for a judgment consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

Judge BRASWELL concurs.

Judge WHICHARD dissents.


Summaries of

Betts v. Parrish

North Carolina Court of Appeals
May 1, 1983
62 N.C. App. 77 (N.C. Ct. App. 1983)
Case details for

Betts v. Parrish

Case Details

Full title:WENDY BETTS, ANGIE BETTS, BY AND THROUGH THEIR GUARDIAN AD LITEM, SANDRA…

Court:North Carolina Court of Appeals

Date published: May 1, 1983

Citations

62 N.C. App. 77 (N.C. Ct. App. 1983)
302 S.E.2d 288

Citing Cases

Betts v. Parrish

Wills 28 -doctrine of implied gift The doctrine of implied gift set out in Wing v. Trust Co., 301 N.C. 456,…