## Facts

- A mother executed a will devising her entire estate equally to her three sons: Vernon, Verdie, and William.
- She later executed a codicil disinheriting Vernon and leaving the estate to Verdie and William, with an accompanying note criticizing Vernon’s treatment of her.
- After the mother’s death, the brothers met with an attorney who read the will, codicil, and note; Vernon objected and a heated dispute followed.
- Vernon threatened litigation unless his brothers conveyed him a share of the estate.
- The brothers allegedly reached an oral family settlement under which the will would be probated without the codicil, and the codicil was torn up.
- The will (without the codicil) was probated.
- A deed was prepared to give William a larger share of the real property; Vernon refused to sign, asserting the agreement required equal division.
- Verdie and William reassembled the torn codicil and had it probated, excluding Vernon from the estate.
- Vernon sued for breach of the alleged family settlement and sought specific performance granting him one-third of the real and personal property.

## Issues

1. Whether a promise not to caveat (contest) a codicil constitutes valid consideration for a family settlement agreement when there is no evidence of a bona fide dispute as to the codicil’s validity.
2. Whether, absent such consideration, defendants were entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of North Carolina reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated summary judgment for the defendants.
- The court held that Vernon’s asserted forbearance from contesting the codicil did not supply consideration because he produced no forecast of evidence showing a bona fide dispute over the codicil’s validity.
- With consideration lacking, the alleged family settlement agreement was unenforceable on the record presented.

## Legal Principles

- Family settlement agreements are favored, but they remain subject to ordinary contract requirements, including consideration.
- Forbearance to sue, including an agreement not to contest a will or codicil, is consideration only if the surrendered claim is asserted in good faith and rests on a bona fide dispute with a reasonable basis.
- A bare threat to bring an unsupported will contest does not constitute consideration.
- On summary judgment, a party relying on forbearance as consideration must forecast evidence supporting the existence of a bona fide dispute; otherwise, the opposing party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The court enforced contract doctrine in the probate-settlement context, holding that an alleged agreement to share an estate could not be enforced where its only asserted consideration was a promise not to contest a codicil unsupported by evidence of any bona fide challenge to the codicil’s validity.


Holt v. Holt, 282 S.E.2d 784 (N.C. 1981)