In Wilder v. Hill, 175 N.C. App. 769, 625 S.E.2d 572 (2006), a civil action for fraud and undue influence regarding the will of the plaintiff's stepfather was dismissed where the plaintiff did not present the script he claimed was decedent's last will at a prior caveat proceeding. The plaintiff had been named as a beneficiary of his stepfather's will, executed in 1964. The estate included a family residence, for which the plaintiff had given his stepfather money to maintain. The plaintiff's stepfather subsequently executed a will in 1998, excluding the plaintiff as a beneficiary. Upon his stepfather's death, the plaintiff prosecuted a successful caveat proceeding, challenging the 1998 will based on fraud and undue influence, and the will tendered for probate was disallowed. The plaintiff never presented the 1964 will during the caveat proceeding, however, and his stepfather's estate was distributed by intestate succession. The plaintiff then attempted to recover money damages equal to one-half the value of the family residence or all the funds advanced to his stepfather for maintenance of the property. The Court held that the plaintiff's claim to inherit lay in the alleged 1964 will, "the existence and validity of which he failed to establish during the caveat proceeding." Id. at 773, 625 S.E.2d at 575. "Where a plaintiff may gain adequate relief in a caveat proceeding . . . a direct attack by caveat is a complete and adequate remedy at law." Id. at 772-73, 625 S.E.2d at 575.