Steele v. Kenna

No. COA25-530 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · February 18, 2026 · No. COA25-530

Summary

The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed an order compelling the production of estate-planning documents from the law firm Wyrick Robbins in a dispute over the meaning of “my nieces and nephews” in the Patrick Steele Revocable Trust. The court held, as a matter of first impression under North Carolina law, that the testamentary exception to the attorney-client privilege applies to disputes concerning distributions under a trust as well as a will. The court also concluded that the order did not violate the trustee’s personal attorney-client privilege because it was limited to documents responsive to the subpoena and related to the grantor’s estate planning.

Holdings

  1. An interlocutory order compelling disclosure of documents allegedly protected by the common-law attorney-client privilege is immediately appealable when the privilege assertion is not frivolous or insubstantial because the order affects a substantial right.
  2. The testamentary exception to the attorney-client privilege applies equally to a dispute regarding distribution under a will or a trust; where the controversy concerns who takes by succession, the decedent's communications with counsel concerning the trust and its amendments are subject to discovery by the competing claimants.
  3. The order compelling production did not violate Mary Paula Zaytoun Steele's personal attorney-client privilege because it was limited to documents responsive to the subpoena concerning the grantor's estate planning and expressly excluded privileged information of other law-firm clients.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether an order compelling production of documents allegedly protected by attorney-client privilege was immediately appealable as affecting a substantial right.
  2. Whether the testamentary exception to the attorney-client privilege applies to communications and documents concerning the drafting and amendment of a trust when the parties dispute who is entitled to take under the trust.
  3. Whether compelling production violated Mary Paula Zaytoun Steele's personal attorney-client privilege or required an in camera review.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (16)

  • Goldston v. Am. Motors Corp., 326 N.C. 723, 392 S.E.2d 735 (1990)(followed)
  • Veazey v. City of Durham, 231 N.C. 357, 57 S.E.2d 377 (1950)(followed)
  • Campbell v. Campbell, 237 N.C. App. 1, 764 S.E.2d 630 (2014)(followed)
  • Sessions v. Sloane, 248 N.C. App. 370, 789 S.E.2d 844 (2016)(followed)
  • Sharpe v. Worland, 351 N.C. 159, 522 S.E.2d 577 (1999)(applied)
  • State v. Chemuti, 388 N.C. 412, 920 S.E.2d 810 (2025)(followed)
  • K2 Asia Ventures v. Trota, 215 N.C. App. 443, 717 S.E.2d 1 (2011), disc. review denied, 365 N.C. 369, 719 S.E.2d 37 (2011)(followed)
  • Maldjian v. Bloomquist, 245 N.C. App. 222, 782 S.E.2d 80 (2016)(followed)
  • Medlin v. N.C. Specialty Hosp., LLC, 233 N.C. App. 327, 756 S.E.2d 812 (2014)(followed)
  • In re Appeal of Greens of Pine Glen Ltd. P'ship, 356 N.C. 642, 576 S.E.2d 316 (2003)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 16.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from North Carolina Court Of Appeals Court Of Appeals