{ "id": 11078904, "name": "CORA LEE PAYNE WATSON, LEE VERNON PAYNE, CHARLES ODELL PAYNE, JR., and CURLEY LLEWELLYN PAYNE, Plaintiffs v. SHARON LEE FRYE SMOKER, RONALD EDWARD McBRIDE, SUSAN LYNN McBRIDE CHURCH, and GARY CHURCH, Defendants", "name_abbreviation": "Watson v. Smoker", "decision_date": "2000-05-16", "docket_number": "No. COA99-913", "first_page": "158", "last_page": "162", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "138 N.C. App. 158" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "166 S.E. 889", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1932, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "890", "parenthetical": "quoting 1 William Herbert Page, Page on Wills \u00a7 815, at 1383-84 (2d ed. 1926)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "203 N.C. 709", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8619112 ], "year": 1932, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "712", "parenthetical": "quoting 1 William Herbert Page, Page on Wills \u00a7 815, at 1383-84 (2d ed. 1926)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/203/0709-01" ] }, { "cite": "175 S.E.2d 351", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1970, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "353" }, { "page": "353" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "9 N.C. App. 33", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8547726 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1970, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "36" }, { "page": "36" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/9/0033-01" ] }, { "cite": "44 S.E.2d 54", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1947, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "56" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "227 N.C. 606", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626710 ], "year": 1947, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "609" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/227/0606-01" ] }, { "cite": "84 S.E. 25", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1915, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "29" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "168 N.C. 4", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8656789 ], "year": 1915, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "13" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/168/0004-01" ] }, { "cite": "91 S.E.2d 246", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1956, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "250" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "243 N.C. 469", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625764 ], "year": 1956, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "473" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/243/0469-01" ] }, { "cite": "182 S.E.2d 217", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "219" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "11 N.C. App. 657", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8556406 ], "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "660" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/11/0657-01" ] }, { "cite": "58 S.E.2d 709", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1950, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "715" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "231 N.C. 669", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8631719 ], "year": 1950, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "679" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/231/0669-01" ] }, { "cite": "299 S.E.2d 207", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "211" }, { "page": "211" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "307 N.C. 485", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8563923 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "492" }, { "page": "492" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/307/0485-01" ] }, { "cite": "325 S.E.2d 195", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "197" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "312 N.C. 692", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4759469 ], "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "696" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/312/0692-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 537, "char_count": 10556, "ocr_confidence": 0.756, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.1813549812920936e-07, "percentile": 0.7724012094913641 }, "sha256": "71ef3507f36537301b55f634dd5bae3a0544b9285bfc6275096edf7e6b77bbba", "simhash": "1:c811c8c3c42c38c9", "word_count": 1764 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:09:36.911228+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges McGEE and EDMUNDS concur." ], "parties": [ "CORA LEE PAYNE WATSON, LEE VERNON PAYNE, CHARLES ODELL PAYNE, JR., and CURLEY LLEWELLYN PAYNE, Plaintiffs v. SHARON LEE FRYE SMOKER, RONALD EDWARD McBRIDE, SUSAN LYNN McBRIDE CHURCH, and GARY CHURCH, Defendants" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "GREENE, Judge.\nSharon Lee Frye Smoker, Ronald Edward McBride, Susan Lynn McBride Church, and Gary Church (collectively, Defendants) appeal the trial court\u2019s order granting summary judgment in favor of Cora Lee Payne Watson, Lee Vernon Payne, Charles Odell Payne, Jr., and Curley Llewellyn Payne (collectively, Plaintiffs) entered on 30 April 1999.\nOn 28 October 1997, Plaintiffs filed a complaint and request for a declaratory judgment interpreting the will of Meric\u00e1 Canzada Payne (Testatrix). The will of Testatrix, probated on 22 December 1964, provides, in pertinent part, as follows:\nSECOND: I give and devise to my beloved niece, Carlene Payne McBride, and her children, namely: (Sharon Lee Frye [Smoker], Ronald Edward McBride and Susan Lynn McBride [Church], Their Mother, Carlene Payne McBride, my niece shall be the guardian of the children\u2019s part), the tract of land on which I now reside, Containing two and one-half acres, more or less, for her natural life, in satisfaction of her dower and third in all my lands. ...\nDefendants, excluding Gary Church, are the children of Carlene Payne McBride (Carlene). Gary Church is the husband of Susan Lynn McBride Church. Carlene died on 17 October 1991. Cora Lee Payne Watson is the widow of Charles Payne, the son of Testatrix. Lee Vernon Payne, Charles Odell Payne, Jr., and Curley Llewellyn Payne are the children of Charles Payne and Cora Lee Payne Watson and the grandchildren of Testatrix.\nThe trial court, in a summary judgment, ordered \u201cthat. . . [Plaintiffs are the fee simple owners\u201d of the two and one-half acres devised in the will.\nThe dispositive issues are (I) whether the language in the will is ambiguous, and if so, (II) whether a proper construction of the will places fee simple title in Carlene\u2019s children.\nIt is well established \u201cthat the primary object in interpreting a will is to give effect to the intention of the testator,\u201d Misenheimer v. Misenheimer, 312 N.C. 692, 696, 325 S.E.2d 195, 197 (1985), and this intent, where ascertained, will be given effect unless it violates some rule of law or is contrary to public policy, Pittman v. Thomas, 307 N.C. 485, 492, 299 S.E.2d 207, 211 (1983). A testator\u2019s intent is to be gathered from a consideration of the four corners of the will. Sutton v. Quinerly; Sutton v. Craddock; Sutton v. Fields, 231 N.C. 669, 679, 58 S.E.2d 709, 715 (1950). Where a testator\u2019s intent \u201cis clearly expressed in plain and unambiguous language[,] there is no need to resort to the general rules of construction for an interpretation,\u201d because \u201cthe will is to be given effect according to its obvious intent.\u201d Price v. Price, 11 N.C. App. 657, 660, 182 S.E.2d 217, 219 (1971). Where a testator\u2019s intent is not clear and the will\u2019s terms are subject to more than one reasonable meaning, however, resort may be had to the courts for construction of the will. Pittman, 307 N.C. at 492, 299 S.E.2d at 211. \u201cThe authority and responsibility to interpret or construe a will rests solely on the court.\u201d Trust Co. v. Wolfe, 243 N.C. 469, 473, 91 S.E.2d 246, 250 (1956).\nI\nIn this case, the will devises the real property to Carlene and her children for the natural life of Carlene. Without more, this language indicates an intent for Carlene\u2019s children to have a life estate pur autre vie (for the life of) Carlene. In other words, Carlene and her children were to have a concurrent life estate in the property, with Carlene\u2019s life constituting the measuring life. This is the construction urged by Plaintiffs. This type of estate has been recognized by our courts, see Brown v. Brown, 168 N.C. 4, 13, 84 S.E. 25, 29 (1915); see also 1 Patrick K. Hetrick & James B. McLaughlin, Jr., Webster\u2019s Real Estate Law in North Carolina \u00a7 5-2, at 84 (5th ed. 1999) [hereinafter 1 Webster\u2019s Real Estate Law], and generally arises when a parcel of land is conveyed or devised, for example, \u201c \u2018[t]o A for the life of B,\u2019 \u201d 1 Webster\u2019s Real Estate Law \u00a7 5-2, at 84. The language in the will that Carlene was to serve as \u201cthe guardian of [her] children\u2019s part,\u201d which of course could occur only during Carlene\u2019s life, is consistent with a construction the children\u2019s interest was to terminate at Carlene\u2019s death.\nThe will also provides, however, the devise to Carlene is \u201cin satisfaction of [Carlene\u2019s] dower\u201d interest. Although Carlene was not entitled to a dower interest in her aunt\u2019s property, the language in the will does suggest the Testatrix believed Carlene was entitled to such an interest and intended the will to satisfy that obligation. The devise of a concurrent life estate in property would not have satisfied a dower obligation. See Sheppard v. Sykes, 227 N.C. 606, 609, 44 S.E.2d 54, 56 (1947); see also 28 C.J.S. Dower and Curtesy \u00a7 64, at 147-48. The intention of Testatrix to provide Carlene with a dower estate would, thus, be contrary to the granting of concurrent life estates to Carlene\u2019s children and reasonably supports a construction that Testatrix intended Carlene to have a life estate in the property, with Carlene\u2019s children having the remainder interest. See 31 C.J.S Estates \u00a7 70, at 124 (1996) (\u201cremainder is a remnant of an estate in land, depending on a particular prior estate, created at the same time and by the same instrument and limited to arise immediately on the determination of the prior estate and not in abridgement of it\u201d). This is the construction urged by Defendants. Because the intent of the Testatrix is not clear and subject to two reasonable meanings, the will is ambiguous and subject to construction by the courts.\nII\nThere is a presumption of law, under the general rules of will construction, against intestacy when a person makes a will, see 1 Norman Adrian Wiggins, Wills and Administration of Estates in North Carolina \u00a7 133, at 230; see also Lesane v. Chandler, 9 N.C. App. 33, 36, 175 S.E.2d 351, 353 (1970), which provides that when \u201ca will is susceptible to two reasonable constructions, one disposing of all of the testator\u2019s property, and the other leaving part of the property un[-] disposed of, the former construction will be adopted and the latter rejected,\u201d Lesane, 9 N.C. App. at 36, 175 S.E.2d at 353. A will should not, therefore, be construed in such a way that results in \u201c \u2018partial intestacy . . . unless such intention appears clearly\u2019 \u201d in the will, because \u201c \u2018the courts . . . prefer any reasonable construction, or any construction which does not do violence to testator\u2019s language, to a construction which results in partial intestacy.\u2019 \u201d Holmes v. York, 203 N.C. 709, 712, 166 S.E. 889, 890 (1932) (quoting 1 William Herbert Page, Page on Wills \u00a7 815, at 1383-84 (2d ed. 1926)).\nThe first reasonable construction, as urged by Plaintiffs, would result in Testatrix dying partially intestate. This is so, because, after Carlene\u2019s death, her children\u2019s (Defendants\u2019) interest in the property would end, see 1 Webster\u2019s Real Estate Law \u00a7 5-1, at 83 (life estate terminates upon the death of designated person), the property would revert back to the estate of Testatrix, see 31 C.J.S. Estates \u00a7 104, at 172 (reversion arises by operation of law whenever grantor has conveyed less than his whole estate), and the will does not have a residuary clause to dispose of the property. Whereas, the second reasonable construction, as urged by Defendants, would result in the complete disposition of the estate of Testatrix, because at Carlene\u2019s death, her children\u2019s remainder interest would become a present possessory estate in fee simple absolute.\nAccordingly, we accept Defendants\u2019 proposed construction of the will and hold Testatrix intended to devise her real property to Carlene for her natural life and then to Carlene\u2019s children. Defendants, consequently, were vested at the death of Carlene with the fee simple ownership of the property described in the will. The judgment of the trial court is, therefore, reversed and remanded for the entry of a judgment declaring Defendants to be the owners of the property described in the will.\nReversed and remanded.\nJudges McGEE and EDMUNDS concur.\n. In its order granting Plaintiffs\u2019 motion for summary judgment, the trial court inadvertently omitted Curley Llewellyn Payne from the listing of the \u201cPlaintiffs\u201d and Gary Church from the listing of the \u201cDefendants\u201d in the caption of the \u201cOrder.\u201d Our review of the record does not disclose a dismissal for either of these two parties, and thus, we adopt the caption of the \u201cPlaintiffs\u201d and \"Defendants\u201d from their respective complaint and answer and the title page of the record, which include the names of Curley Llewellyn Payne and Gary Church, respectively.\n. The estate of dower was abolished by statute in 1960 in North Carolina. See N.C.G.S. \u00a7 29-4 (1999). In any event, when it did exist, it was a right, belonging only to the widow of the decedent, \u201cto an estate for life in one-third of all the land in which the husband had an estate of inheritance during coverture.\u201d 2 Norman Adrian Wiggins, Wills and Administration of Estates in North Carolina \u00a7 194, at 2 (3d ed. 1993).", "type": "majority", "author": "GREENE, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Robert P. Laney for plaintiff-appellees.", "Cecil Lee Porter for defendant-appellants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "CORA LEE PAYNE WATSON, LEE VERNON PAYNE, CHARLES ODELL PAYNE, JR., and CURLEY LLEWELLYN PAYNE, Plaintiffs v. SHARON LEE FRYE SMOKER, RONALD EDWARD McBRIDE, SUSAN LYNN McBRIDE CHURCH, and GARY CHURCH, Defendants\nNo. COA99-913\n(Filed 16 May 2000)\nWills\u2014 concurrent life estate and dower \u2014 ambiguous\u2014presumption against intestacy\nThe trial court erred by ordering in a summary judgment that plaintiffs, the widow and children of testatrix\u2019s son, were the fee simple owners of property devised in a will where the will left to the testatrix\u2019s niece and the niece\u2019s children the tract of land on which the testatrix was living for the niece\u2019s natural life \u201cin satisfaction of her dower.\u201d The will is ambiguous and subject to construction of the courts because the intent to provide the niece with a dower estate would be contrary to the granting of a concurrent life estate to the niece\u2019s children. Testatrix is held to have intended to devise her real property to her niece for her natural life and then to her children because the will did not have a residuary clause, so that a concurrent life estate with the children\u2019s interest terminating at the niece\u2019s death would result in an intestacy. There is a presumption of law against intestacy when a person makes a will.\nAppeal by defendants from order filed 30 April 1999 by Judge Jeanie Reavis Houston in Wilkes County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 25 April 2000.\nRobert P. Laney for plaintiff-appellees.\nCecil Lee Porter for defendant-appellants." }, "file_name": "0158-01", "first_page_order": 188, "last_page_order": 192 }