Dec272025
Probate Q&A Series

How do I oppose a motion for summary judgment in a will caveat when there are factual disputes about intent, revocation, and undue influence? – North Carolina

Short Answer

In a North Carolina will caveat, summary judgment should be denied if the evidence shows a genuine dispute about material facts such as the testator’s intent, whether the will was revoked, or whether someone exercised undue influence. The opposition usually focuses on presenting admissible evidence (affidavits, deposition excerpts, documents) that creates a real factual disagreement for a jury to decide in superior court. Caveat cases often turn on credibility and circumstances, so courts handle summary judgment cautiously. The key is to tie each disputed fact to a legal element that must be proven at trial.

Understanding the Problem

In North Carolina probate litigation, a will caveat asks whether a document is the valid last will of the decedent. When a party files a motion for summary judgment, the decision point becomes whether the superior court must decide the case now without a jury trial, or whether factual disputes about the testator’s intent, an alleged revocation, or alleged undue influence require a trial. The practical issue is how an aligned party responds so the court understands which facts matter and why those facts must be decided by a jury rather than on paper.

Apply the Law

North Carolina’s caveat statute sends the dispute to superior court for a jury trial after a caveat is filed and served. Summary judgment is controlled by Rule 56 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure and is only appropriate when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In will caveats, issues like intent, revocation, and undue influence frequently depend on inferences, credibility, and circumstantial evidence, so courts emphasize caution when deciding summary judgment in this setting.

Key Requirements

  • Identify “material” facts in dispute: Point to specific factual disagreements that matter under the legal standards for revocation or undue influence (not side issues).
  • Support disputes with admissible evidence: Use sworn affidavits/declarations, deposition testimony, and authenticated documents that a court can consider under Rule 56.
  • Connect each dispute to the burden of proof at trial: Explain why the disputed facts would allow a reasonable jury to rule for the nonmoving party on intent, revocation, or undue influence.

What the Statutes Say

Analysis

Apply the Rule to the Facts: Because no specific facts were provided, consider two common, neutral examples that change only one variable. (1) If one side offers affidavits from witnesses saying the testator intentionally tore up the will to revoke it, and the other side offers sworn testimony that the will was found damaged after the testator lost capacity or after someone else had access to it, intent and the revocatory act become disputed material facts under the revocation statute. (2) If one side presents evidence that the testator repeatedly expressed a consistent estate plan, and the other side presents evidence of a sudden change during a period of dependency and isolation with the primary beneficiary involved in the planning, the circumstances and credibility issues can create a jury question on undue influence.

Process & Timing

  1. Who files: The party opposing summary judgment (often the caveator or the propounder, depending on who moved). Where: Superior Court in the county where the estate is pending after transfer under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 31-33. What: A written response/opposition to the Rule 56 motion with supporting affidavits, deposition excerpts, and exhibits; a separate statement of disputed material facts is often used if local rules or the judge prefer it. When: The timing is governed by the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure and any case management order; it is common for the hearing notice to control deadlines for filing and service.
  2. Build the evidentiary record: Use discovery materials that show disputes about (a) what the testator said and did, (b) who had access and opportunity, (c) who participated in preparation/execution, and (d) whether the testator acted freely. If essential discovery is missing, counsel often asks the court to delay ruling until the needed evidence can be obtained.
  3. Hearing and order: At the summary judgment hearing, the judge decides whether a genuine dispute exists on a material fact. If disputes exist, the judge denies summary judgment and the case proceeds toward a jury trial on the will’s validity.

Exceptions & Pitfalls

  • Arguing “unfairness” instead of material facts: Summary judgment turns on evidence and material facts tied to legal elements. General claims that a result “seems wrong” do not create a factual dispute.
  • Using inadmissible materials: Unsworn letters, unauthenticated screenshots, and hearsay-heavy statements can be ignored at the Rule 56 stage. The opposition works best when it relies on sworn testimony and properly supported exhibits.
  • Missing the real issue on revocation: North Carolina revocation law focuses on an authorized method plus intent to revoke. Evidence may dispute the “act” (what happened to the document) and/or the “intent” (why it happened). Either dispute can be material.
  • Overlooking how execution proof is used: In some cases, earlier probate materials can serve as evidence of due execution. If the opposition claims improper execution, it should address any prima facie proof already in the file and explain what evidence contradicts it.
  • Not accounting for party alignment and service: Caveat procedure includes service and an alignment hearing in superior court. If alignment, responsive pleadings, or service steps were mishandled, the court may focus on procedural fixes rather than the merits.

Conclusion

In North Carolina, summary judgment in a will caveat should be denied when the record shows a genuine dispute about material facts, including the testator’s intent, whether revocation occurred under the statutory methods, and whether undue influence affected the will. Because caveats are tried in superior court by a jury after transfer, the opposition should identify each material dispute and support it with admissible evidence under Rule 56. The next step is to file and serve a written response with supporting affidavits and exhibits by the deadline in the hearing notice and any case management order.

Talk to a Probate Attorney

If a will caveat summary judgment motion is pending and the case involves factual disputes about intent, revocation, or undue influence, an attorney can help identify the material issues, gather admissible evidence, and meet court deadlines. Call us today at (919) 341-7055.

Disclaimer: This article provides general information about North Carolina law based on the single question stated above. It is not legal advice for your specific situation and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws, procedures, and local practice can change and may vary by county. If you have a deadline, act promptly and speak with a licensed North Carolina attorney.

Category: Probate Q&A Series

Author: jpierce

Attorney Jared Pierce is the founder of Pierce Law Group in Raleigh, North Carolina, a firm he established with a dedicated focus on probate administration and estate planning across North Carolina. Born and raised in the Republic of South Africa, Jared moved to Durham with his family in 2001, bringing with him a rich cultural background and a distinctive accent that often serves as a conversation starter.