06.09.2021 Views

Law of Wills, 2016A

Law of Wills, 2016A

Law of Wills, 2016A

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

termination <strong>of</strong> inheritance rights, for the obvious effect <strong>of</strong> the statute itself is to terminate the<br />

inheritance rights <strong>of</strong> such a spouse.<br />

The judgment is affirmed.<br />

Notes, Problems, and Questions<br />

1. Why did Frances argue that she should have been permitted to inherit from Clarence’s estate?<br />

2. The Court admitted that Frances was still legally married to Clarence. Why did the Court refuse to<br />

recognize Frances as a surviving spouse?<br />

3. Consider the following example. Floyd and Glenda were married for 25 years. After Floyd was<br />

diagnosed with cancer, the couple spent a lot <strong>of</strong> money on medical bills. Floyd and Glenda went to a<br />

local charity for assistance. The charity agreed to pay a portion <strong>of</strong> Floyd’s medical expenses if his<br />

income fell below a certain amount. The woman who helped Glenda fill out the paperwork told<br />

Glenda that Floyd would qualify for assistance if he and Glenda were legally separated. Thus,<br />

Glenda filed for a legal separation. Two months after Glenda was granted a legal separation, Floyd<br />

died intestate. Floyd was survived by Glenda and two children from his previous marriage, Vivian<br />

and Leigh. Floyd’s probate estate which consisted <strong>of</strong> real estate he purchased prior to his marriage to<br />

Glenda was worth $72,000. In a jurisdiction that follows the reasoning <strong>of</strong> the Lahey case would<br />

Glenda be eligible to inherit from Floyd’s estate? If she is permitted to inherit, what portion <strong>of</strong> the<br />

estate would Glenda receive in a UPC jurisdiction? In the jurisdiction where you live if it has not<br />

adopted the UPC?<br />

3.2.4.2 Abandonment<br />

Estate <strong>of</strong> Joyner v. Joyner, 753 S.E.2d 192 (Ct. App. N.C. 2014) (Constructive Abandonment)<br />

Opinion<br />

HUNTER, Judge.<br />

Plaintiffs appeal from an order entered 17 October 2012 in Lenoir County Superior Court by Judge<br />

Phyllis M. Gorham granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment. On appeal, plaintiffs argue<br />

there was a genuine issue <strong>of</strong> material fact with respect to whether Warren Joyner (“Warren”)<br />

constructively abandoned his wife, Frances Joyner (“Frances”). After careful review, we affirm the<br />

trial court’s order granting summary judgment.<br />

Background<br />

All plaintiffs in this case are surviving siblings <strong>of</strong> Frances. Frances died intestate on 17 January 2011<br />

without children and with her husband, Warren, as her only potential heir. Warren died intestate on<br />

6 February 2011, survived only by his mother. Plaintiffs brought this action against the coadministrators<br />

<strong>of</strong> Warren’s estate, Jessie Mae Britt and Linwood Joyner, and Warren’s mother, Jessie<br />

98

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!