Lankford v. Wright
Supreme Court of North Carolina
489 S.E.2d 604 (1997)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
Mary Winebarger gave birth to a daughter, Barbara Ann Newton Lankford (plaintiff), and shortly afterward entered into a written agreement with her neighbors, Clarence and Lula Newton, in which the Newtons agreed to adopt and raise Barbara as their own child. Subsequently, the Newtons held Barbara out as their own child in every respect, and in turn, Barbara identified the Newtons as her parents long after entering the age of majority. After Clarence died, Lula prepared a will naming Barbara as a co-executrix of Lula’s estate and making specific bequests to Barbara. Upon Lula’s death, Barbara presented the will to probate, but the probate court rejected the document. Because the will could not be probated, Lula’s estate was to be distributed intestate. Barbara filed a petition seeking a declaratory judgment pertaining to her rights and status as an heir of Lula’s estate. The administrators and named heirs of Lula’s estate (defendants) filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion, and Barbara appealed. The court of appeals affirmed, reasoning that Barbara had not been adopted pursuant to North Carolina law and that the Newtons were merely Barbara’s foster parents. The Supreme Court of North Carolina granted Barbara’s petition for discretionary review.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Frye, J.)
Dissent (Mitchell, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 782,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
