Holt v. Holt

282 S.E.2d 784 (1981)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Annie Holt provided that 'all of my property of every sort, kind and description . . . [shall go] to my three sons, namely, Verdie R. Holt, Vernon M. Holt, and William S. Holt, share and share alike, absolutely and in fee simple.' She then executed a codicil wherein she provided that all of her property was to go 'to two of my sons, Verdie R. Holt and William S. Holt, share and share alike, absolutely and in fee simple. I am not willing my son Vernon M. Holt anything . . . because he has not treated me as a child should treat his mother.' Shortly Annie died, Ds, accompanied by their wives, and P, accompanied by his daughter, met in the office of S. Craig Hopkins, an attorney in Albemarle, North Carolina. The attorney read the will and codicil and a note found with the codicil and purportedly in the deceased's handwriting, which further explained why P was not to share in her estate. P became quite upset and contended that his mother did not write this note and that it was not in her handwriting. P and his daughter became enraged. P threatened to commence a lawsuit in order to inundate Ds with attorney's fees unless we conveyed a share of the estate assets to him. Hopkins attempted to resolve the conflict by explaining that if they so desired the three brothers could divide the property equally by probating the will and not probating the codicil. An agreement was reached to probate the will and not probate the codicil. The codicil was then torn into several pieces and on 28 March 1977, the will was probated. P contends the agreement contemplated only that he 'would share equally in my mother's estate and that the will . . . would constitute the Last Will and Testament of Annie H. Holt.' P refused to execute a deed drawn at his brothers' direction which in his opinion did not equally divide the property. Upon P's failure to execute the deed Ds reconstituted the codicil and offered it for probate. The codicil was probated on 4 August 1977. P sued Ds requesting the trial court 'specifically enforce the family settlement agreement . . . and award P a one-third interest in all land Annie H. Holt died seized of and the sum of $3,232.95 which represents one-third of the personal property of Annie H. Holt.' Everyone moved for summary judgment. The court granted Ds' request. P appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the matter to the trial court. That court concluded that the agreement not to probate the codicil was not against public policy and the family settlement agreement . . . was supported by sufficient consideration . . . .' It held that as to the personal property P was entitled to summary judgment. As to the real property, the court held that if P's version of the oral agreement is correct it was fully executed and thus not subject to the Statute of Frauds. If Ds' version of the oral agreement is correct it was partially executed and thus subject to and barred by the statute. Ds appealed.