Narrative Opinion Summary
The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed whether sufficient evidence existed to support the jury's finding that the decedent, Hallie M. Cullinan, was domiciled in Granville County at her death. Under G.S. 28-1, the domicile determines the proper jurisdiction for probating a will. The court explored various domicile forms, concluding that Mrs. Cullinan's domicile with her husband, which was never in North Carolina, ended upon his death. Therefore, she needed to establish a new domicile in North Carolina, requiring both residence and intent to remain. Despite visits to the state for personal reasons and absentee voting, the evidence did not demonstrate her intent to establish domicile in Granville County. The court emphasized that mere absence from a fixed home does not constitute a domicile change without intent. Concluding that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's finding, the court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, questioning the validity of the letters testamentary issued in Granville County.
Legal Issues Addressed
Change of Domicile Requirementssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court outlines that a change of domicile requires abandoning the previous domicile and establishing a new one with actual residence and intent.
Reasoning: A change of domicile necessitates the abandonment of the previous domicile and the acquisition of a new one, both requiring actual residence and the intent to remain.
Domicile and Probate Jurisdiction under G.S. 28-1subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The case explores the jurisdictional requirements for probating a will, emphasizing that domicile is crucial for determining the appropriate county for probate proceedings.
Reasoning: Under G.S. 28-1, the clerk of superior court can probate wills and issue letters testamentary in counties where the decedent was domiciled or where assets are located.
Establishment of Domicilesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: This case examines the criteria required to establish a domicile, highlighting the necessity of both actual residence and the intention to make it a permanent home.
Reasoning: To establish a domicile, two elements are required: actual residence and the intention to make that residence a permanent home.
Insufficiency of Evidence for Establishing Domicilesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: In this case, the court found insufficient evidence to support Mrs. Cullinan's domicile in North Carolina, as her actions did not meet the legal requirements of actual residence with intent.
Reasoning: There is no evidence indicating she resided in North Carolina after 1945 with the intent to establish her domicile there.
Presumption of Continued Domicilesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The presumption that domicile continues until evidence of change is presented is central to the court's analysis in determining Mrs. Cullinan's domicile at the time of her death.
Reasoning: A domicile is presumed to continue until evidence shows a change has occurred.