(a) A duly probated will is effective to pass title to real and personal property.
(b) A will is not effective to pass title to real or personal property as against lien creditors or purchasers for valuable consideration from the intestate heirs at law of a decedent, unless the will is probated or offered for probate before the earlier of (i) the date of the approval by the clerk of the superior court having jurisdiction of the decedent's estate of the final account filed by the personal representative of the decedent's estate, or (ii) the date that is two years from the date of death of the decedent. If the will is fraudulently suppressed, stolen, or destroyed, or is lost, and an action or proceeding is instituted within the time limitation set forth in this subsection to obtain that will or establish that will as provided by law, the time limitation under this subsection begins to run from the termination of that action or proceeding.
(c) A will duly probated in one county of this State is not effective to pass title to an interest in real property located in any other county of this State as against lien creditors or purchasers for valuable consideration from the intestate heirs at law of a decedent unless a certified copy of the will and a certified copy of the certificate of probate of the will are filed in the office of the clerk of superior court in the county where the real property lies within the time limitation set forth in subsection (b) of this section.
(d) A conveyance made by the intestate heirs at law of a decedent before the expiration of the time limitation set forth in subsection (b) of this section shall, upon the expiration of that time, become effective to the same extent as if the conveyance were made after the expiration of that time, unless before the expiration of that time, a proceeding is instituted in the proper court to probate a will of the decedent. (1784, c. 225, s. 6; R.C., c. 119, s. 20; Code, s. 2174; Rev., s. 3139; 1915, c. 219; C.S., s. 4163; 1953, c. 920, s. 1; 2012-68, s. 2; 2014-107, s. 2.2.)
Notes of Decisions
In Re the Purported Last Will & Testament of Barnes, 579 S.E.2d 585 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 4× “" N.C. Gen.Stat. § 31-39 (2002). "The purpose of probate is to establish that the will in question has been executed in a proper manner and that it constitutes the last will of the deceased.”
Morris v. Morris, 95 S.E.2d 110 (N.C. 1956).
· cites it 3× “G.S. 31-39 provides “No will shall be effectual to pass real or personal estate unless it shall have been duly proved and allowed in the probate court of the proper county .”
Jones v. Warren, 161 S.E.2d 467 (N.C. 1968).
· cites it 2× “” G.S. 31-39 provides, “No will shall be effectual to pass real or personal estate unless it shall have been duly proved and allowed in the probate court of the proper county.”
Montgomery v. Hinton, 262 S.E.2d 697 (N.C. Ct. App. 1980).
“28A-15-2(b) which provides: The title to real property of a decedent is vested in his heirs as of the time of his death; but the title to real property of a decedent devised under a valid probated will becomes vested in the devisees and shall relate back to the decedent’s death,…”
Laughinghouse v. Comm'r, 80 T.C. 425 (Tax Ct. 1983).
“-- The title to real property of a decedent is vested in his heirs as of the time of his death; but the title to real property of a decedent devised under a valid probated will becomes vested in the devisees and shall relate back to the decedent's death, subject to the…”
Craig v. Calloway, 314 S.E.2d 823 (N.C. Ct. App. 1984).
“Although it is true that a will does not operate to pass legal title until probated, G.S. 31-39, there was neither allegation nor evidence that any title to any property, real or personal, passed pursuant to any will.”
Cable v. Hardin Oil Co., 179 S.E.2d 829 (N.C. Ct. App. 1971).
“Furthermore, describing the two separate tracts by metes and bounds as a single tract is of no significance. The boundaries of the two tracts, each of which had been conveyed to testatrix and her late husband by separate deeds, remained easily ascertainable.”
Hargrave v. Gardner, 141 S.E.2d 36 (N.C. 1965).
“At the time the action was instituted and 'the complaint was filed, the paper writing had not been admitted to probate.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.