{
  "id": 8522981,
  "name": "IN THE MATTER OF: THE ESTATE OF JAMES HIRAM WARD, JR., Deceased",
  "name_abbreviation": "In re the Estate of Ward",
  "decision_date": "1990-03-20",
  "docket_number": "No. 893SC557",
  "first_page": "660",
  "last_page": "662",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "97 N.C. App. 660"
    }
  ],
  "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": "252 N.C. 761",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "296 N.C. 590",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8569764
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/296/0590-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "73 S.E.2d 879",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1953,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "236 N.C. 654",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627365
      ],
      "year": 1953,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/236/0654-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 265,
    "char_count": 4282,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.758,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.087085966315723e-08,
      "percentile": 0.37934972270584116
    },
    "sha256": "4cda16152a74eb8e9f613e9faa17e914b0d450b81616fc6253eec77f2485d073",
    "simhash": "1:e7cd14e07da99aa2",
    "word_count": 730
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:09:00.422652+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Wells and Johnson concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "IN THE MATTER OF: THE ESTATE OF JAMES HIRAM WARD, JR., Deceased"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PHILLIPS, Judge.\nOnly these facts are pertinent to the question presented: James Hiram Ward, Jr. died testate; his widow, Martha Harris Ward, dissented from the will; a caveat, since resolved, was filed by James Earl Ward, decedent\u2019s son; and the Superior Court ordered the executor of the estate to distribute to Martha Harris Ward her intestate share by dissent without regard to the cost of the caveat proceeding.\nThe only question presented is whether the order is correct. The following provisions of our law require an affirmative answer: Upon dissenting from a will a surviving spouse takes \u201cthe same share of the deceased spouse\u2019s real and personal property as if the deceased had died intestate.\u201d G.S. 30-3(a). So far as the property rights of a dissenting spouse are concerned it is as if there was no will. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. Green, 236 N.C. 654, 73 S.E.2d 879 (1953). A surviving spouse\u2019s right to dissent from a will is determined upon the amount of the decedent\u2019s \u201cnet estate,\u201d Phillips v. Phillips, 296 N.C. 590, 252 N.C. 761 (1979), which G.S. 29-2(5) defines as \u201cthe estate of a decedent, exclusive of family allowances, costs of administration, and all lawful claims against the estate.\u201d The clear purpose of these provisions is to entitle a dissenting spouse to share in her spouse\u2019s estate as if there was no will, and that purpose would be frustrated, rather than served, if the surviving spouse\u2019s intestate share could be diminished or consumed by the expense of litigating the validity of a will in which she has no interest.\nAppellants\u2019 argument that the expense of litigating the caveat is both a lawful claim against the estate and a proper cost of administration under the above provisions of G.S. 29-2(5) has no basis. As used in that statute, a lawful claim against the estate means a claim for redress of some sort that is filed with the personal representative pursuant to the provisions of Article 19 (Claims against the Estate) of Chapter 28A of the North Carolina General Statutes, which is enforceable against the estate because of some act, omission or obligation of the decedent. And \u201ccosts of administration,\u201d as used in G.S. 29-2(5), means those ordinary, usual, and necessary expenses of administering a decedent\u2019s estate. A will caveat and its expense is neither of these; for a will caveat is a claim that the will involved is invalid, and its expense is a cost of court taxable \u201cagainst either party, or apportioned among the parties, in the discretion of the court.\u201d G.S. 6-21.\nAffirmed.\nJudges Wells and Johnson concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PHILLIPS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Poyner & Spruill, by James T. Cheatham, and Bailey & Dixon, by Wright T. Dixon, Jr. and Cathleen M. Plant, for dissenter appellee.",
      "Ward and Smith, by Robert D. Rouse, Jr., for propounder appellants.",
      "Speight, Watson and Brewer, by William H. Watson and James M. Stanley, Jr., for executor appellant Wachovia Bank & Trust Company, N.A."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "IN THE MATTER OF: THE ESTATE OF JAMES HIRAM WARD, JR., Deceased\nNo. 893SC557\n(Filed 20 March 1990)\n1. Wills \u00a7 61 (NCI3d)\u2014 dissent of spouse \u2014distribution of intestate share \u2014cost of caveat proceeding irrelevant\nThe trial court properly ordered the executor of an estate to distribute to decedent\u2019s widow her intestate share by dissent without regard to the cost of a caveat proceeding, since a dissenting spouse may share in her spouse\u2019s estate as if there were no will, and that purpose would be frustrated rather than served if the surviving spouse\u2019s intestate share could be diminished or consumed by the expense of litigating the validity of a will in which she had no interest. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 30-3(a); N.C.G.S. \u00a7 29-2(5).\nAm Jur 2d, Wills \u00a7 907.\n2. Wills \u00a7 25 (NCI3d)\u2014 expense of litigating caveat \u2014 no lawful claim against estate \u2014 no proper cost of administration\nThe expense of litigating a caveat is not a lawful claim against the estate or a proper cost of administration under the provisions of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 29-2(5); rather, such expense is a cost of court taxable against either party or apportioned among the parties in the discretion of the court.\nAm Jur 2d, Wills \u00a7 1092.\nAPPEAL by propounders and executor from order entered 14 April 1989, nunc pro tunc 13 March 1989, by Reid, Judge, in PITT County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 7 February 1990.\nPoyner & Spruill, by James T. Cheatham, and Bailey & Dixon, by Wright T. Dixon, Jr. and Cathleen M. Plant, for dissenter appellee.\nWard and Smith, by Robert D. Rouse, Jr., for propounder appellants.\nSpeight, Watson and Brewer, by William H. Watson and James M. Stanley, Jr., for executor appellant Wachovia Bank & Trust Company, N.A."
  },
  "file_name": "0660-01",
  "first_page_order": 688,
  "last_page_order": 690
}