## Facts

- James Lester Goodwin, an 80-year-old widower with substantial property, met Wesley Foust-Graham, a 40-year-old real estate broker, through a business relationship involving sale of his real estate.
- After Goodwin’s caretaker left, Foust-Graham began assisting Goodwin with daily needs, spending extensive time in his home, handling chores, and maintaining daily contact.
- On April 12, 2002, Goodwin and Foust-Graham married before a magistrate.
- Evidence indicated Goodwin was confused about the wedding and believed he was in legal trouble; a business acquaintance arrived at the magistrate’s office after Goodwin requested help.
- The magistrate expressed concern about Goodwin’s condition and questioned whether he was competent to marry.
- Medical and lay testimony indicated Goodwin had dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, with significant cognitive decline and susceptibility to suggestion.
- Goodwin’s adult daughter, Kelly Goodwin Clark, acting as guardian ad litem, sued to annul the marriage on grounds including incompetency, lack of consent, undue influence, and impotence.
- Goodwin died on October 23, 2003; the trial court substituted Clark as plaintiff in her capacity as executrix, but not as a will beneficiary.
- At trial, Foust-Graham presented evidence of Goodwin’s consent and of a sexual relationship; Clark presented evidence of diminished capacity and dependence.
- The jury found that Foust-Graham procured the marriage through undue influence, and the trial court entered judgment annulling the marriage.

## Issues

1. Whether an annulment action challenging a marriage as procured by undue influence may be continued after the spouse’s death by the personal representative of the estate.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding that the marriage was procured by undue influence.
3. Whether alleged errors in evidentiary rulings and jury instructions required reversal.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the judgment annulling the marriage.
- The court held the executrix was properly substituted and could continue the annulment action because the marriage’s validity affected estate and inheritance rights.
- The court held the record contained sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find undue influence, including Goodwin’s mental decline, dependence, and circumstances surrounding the wedding.
- The court found no reversible error in the jury instructions when read as a whole.
- The court found no prejudicial abuse of discretion in admitting evidence relating to Goodwin’s mental condition, his statements showing confusion, and the magistrate’s observations.

## Legal Principles

- A marriage may be annulled when procured by undue influence that overcomes a party’s free will and prevents meaningful consent.
- An annulment action filed during the allegedly influenced spouse’s lifetime may, in appropriate circumstances, be continued after death by the decedent’s personal representative when marital status affects property distribution and spousal rights.
- On appeal from a jury verdict, the reviewing court does not reweigh credibility and will uphold the verdict if there is more than a scintilla of evidence supporting it.
- Evidence of mental weakness, dependence, and a dominating relationship may support an inference of undue influence in the formation of marriage.
- Jury instructions are assessed as a whole; reversal requires a showing of prejudicial error.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the annulment because the executrix could continue the case after Goodwin’s death and the jury had sufficient evidence to find that Foust-Graham’s influence overcame Goodwin’s ability to exercise independent consent to the marriage.


Clark v. Foust-Graham, 615 S.E.2d 398 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005)