Matter of Estate of Norton
330 N.C. 378, 1991 N.C. LEXIS 797, 410 S.E.2d 484 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a properly executed testamentary instrument, such as a codicil, to incorporate an unattested document by reference, the instrument must refer to the extrinsic document in terms so clear and distinct that its identity is established with full assurance.
Facts:
- Sometime between 1970 and 1977, Lawrence Norton had a six-page document titled 'Last Will and Testament of Lawrence Norton' typed.
- Norton signed his name at the bottom of each of the six pages, but the document was not dated or signed by any witnesses.
- On September 17, 1984, after suffering a stroke that impaired his ability to write, Norton executed a two-page document titled 'CODICIL TO Last Will and Testament of Lawrence Norton,' which was properly witnessed, notarized, and signed with his mark.
- This codicil made a specific devise of land but did not contain any language that described or identified the preceding six-page document.
- At Norton's direction, his granddaughter, Dorinda Wells, stapled the two-page codicil to the six-page 'will,' after Norton stated they 'had to be attached to the will if they were to be any good.'
- The stapled eight-page document was placed in an envelope labeled 'WILL OF LAWRENCE NORTON AND CODICIL OF LAWRENCE Norton' and stored in Norton's safe-deposit box, which he did not access again.
- Lawrence Norton died on January 15, 1987, and the envelope containing the stapled document was found in his safe-deposit box, along with another unrelated, older codicil from 1975.
Procedural Posture:
- Teab Norton, the propounder, filed to have an eight-page document probated as the last will and testament of Lawrence Norton in the Superior Court of Scotland County, North Carolina.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the propounder, finding the eight-page document constituted the valid will.
- The respondents moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), challenging the jury's findings on the incorporation of the first six pages.
- The trial court judge granted the respondents' motion for JNOV, setting aside the jury's verdict as a matter of law.
- The propounder, Teab Norton, appealed the JNOV to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The propounder appealed the Court of Appeals' decision to the Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a validly executed codicil incorporate an unattested six-page document by reference when the codicil itself contains no explicit textual reference to that document, even though the documents were physically attached at the testator's direction and extrinsic evidence suggests an intent to integrate them?
Opinions:
Majority - Meyer, Justice.
No. A validly executed codicil does not incorporate an unattested will by reference if the codicil itself lacks a clear and distinct reference to the unattested document. Physical attachment and extrinsic evidence of intent cannot cure the absence of an adequate identifying reference within the incorporating instrument. The court applied the two-part test from Watson v. Hinson, which requires that 1) the extrinsic document must exist at the time the incorporating will is executed, and 2) the will's reference to it must be clear enough to provide 'full assurance' of its identity. While the first prong was met, as the six-page will was created before the 1984 codicil, the second prong failed. The codicil makes no reference to the six-page document that would distinguish it from other wills the testator had executed. The court reasoned that the strict statutory formalities for executing a will must also apply to the doctrine of incorporation by reference to ensure certainty and prevent mistake or fraud.
Dissenting - Martin, Justice
Yes. A validly executed codicil does incorporate an unattested will by reference when the codicil refers to 'my Last Will and Testament' and extrinsic evidence provides full assurance of the document's identity. The dissent argued that the majority applied the Watson test too rigidly, ignoring the rule's provision allowing for 'the aid of parol or other proper testimony' to identify the incorporated paper. The codicil’s title, referring to itself as a 'Codicil to my Last Will and Testament,' combined with the overwhelming extrinsic evidence—the testator’s direct instruction to staple the documents together, his statement that they needed to be attached to be valid, the labeled envelope, and their placement in his lock box—provided the necessary 'full assurance' of his intent. The dissent concluded that the testator's actions made it clear beyond any misapprehension that he intended the entire eight-page document to be his will, and the jury's verdict reflecting this intent should have been upheld.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms a strict constructionist approach to the doctrine of incorporation by reference in North Carolina wills law. It establishes that extrinsic evidence of a testator's intent, however strong, cannot substitute for a clear, textual reference within the valid testamentary instrument itself. By prioritizing statutory formality over the testator's apparent intent, the ruling emphasizes certainty and the prevention of fraud in probate proceedings. The case serves as a strong precedent against validating improperly referenced documents, signaling to practitioners that physical attachment alone is insufficient and an explicit, identifying reference within the will or codicil is critical for successful incorporation.
