This appeal arises from a jury determination that two wills purportedly executed by Francis M. Barnes were invalid, thus resulting in a determination that Mr. Barnes died intestate leaving his estate valued at over $24 million to his heirs-at-law. Following the presentation of a will executed by Francis M. Barnes in 1989 (“the 1989 Will)1 *146and issuance of testamentary letters by the Clerk of the Superior Court, Martin County, the beneficiaries under a copy of a will executed by Mr. Barnes in 1967 (“the 1967 Will”)2 filed a caveat against the 1989 Will.
After several days of trial, the jury agreed with the caveators (“the 1967 Will Beneficiaries”) that the 1989 Will had been procured by undue influence; however, the jury gave the 1967. Will Beneficiaries a short-lived victory by further finding that the 1967 Will had been revoked by Mr. Barnes. Both parties appeal; furthermore, the heirs-at-law to the Estate of Francis M. Barnes join in this appeal in support of both verdicts of the jury.
After carefully reviewing this appeal, we hold that the trial court erred by permitting the 1967 Will Beneficiaries to proceed against the 1989 Will without first rebutting the presumption that they lacked standing to caveat attendant to their production of a mere copy of the 1967 Will. For the reasons stated herein, we vacate the judgment of the trial court and remand this matter for entry of judgment in favor of the propounders of the 1989 Will (“the 1989 Will Propounders”).3
I. Facts and Procedural Posture
The underlying facts show that Mr. Barnes died on 17 October 1996; thereafter, a will, dated 22 November 1989, was offered for probate with testamentary letters issued on 30 November 1996. On 17 *147September 1998, the beneficiaries to a will, executed on 25 May 1967, offered a copy of the 1967 Will and sought to file a caveat against the 1989 Will. On 12 July 1999, the Clerk of the Superior Court, Martin County, gave notice of the caveat proceeding to all interested parties under the 1989 and 1967 Wills pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 31-33 (2002). In July 1999, the Athletic Fund of East Carolina University aligned itself with the Propounders of the 1967 Will, and The Church of the Advent aligned itself with the Propounders of the 1989 Will.
On 4 August 2000, Superior Court Judge Jerry Tillet ordered the parties to mediate the dispute; as a result, the parties reached a preliminary settlement on 4 September 2000. Thereafter, a copy of the agreement was circulated, minor changes made, and all parties, including Judge Tillet, signed the settlement except the 1967 Will Beneficiaries. On 19 September 2000, the 1967 Will Beneficiaries fired their attorney; hired Attorney Marvin Blount as counsel; and rejected the settlement offer. In January 2001, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of North Carolina designated the caveat proceeding as “exceptional,” and assigned the matter to special emergency Superior Court Judge John B. Lewis, Jr. Thereafter, Judge Lewis denied the 1989 Will Propounders’ Motion to Enforce Settlement and set the dispute for trial.4
*148On 23 January 2001, the Clerk of the Superior Court, Martin County, mailed a Supplemental Citation to Mr. Barnes’ heirs-at-law: Lucy Tull (first cousin once removed), Riley S. Coddry (lineal descendant of Barnes’ paternal aunt), and Diane Barnes Grau (lineal descendant of Barnes’ paternal aunt). The Supplemental Citation gave Mr. Barnes’ heirs-at-law notice of the caveat, and informed them of their statutory right to “appear and align [themselves] with the Propounder of the 1989 Will, the Caveators of [the] 1989 Will... or [to] identify [themselves] as a Caveator to the 1967 Will.” The heirs-at-law neither aligned themselves with any of the parties to the proceeding, nor did they identify themselves as Caveators to the 1967 Will.
In pretrial motions, the 1989 Will Propounders argued, as a preliminary question of standing, that the 1967 Will Beneficiaries should have to overcome the presumption that the 1967 Will was revoked by Mr. Barnes, and, therefore, the 1967 Beneficiaries did not have standing to challenge the 1989 Will by caveat. The 1989 Will Propounders argued that “if this jury finds [that the 1967 Will] was intentionally revoked, then the [caveat proceeding should] stop[] there.” The trial court, however, did not address the issue of standing, and, instead, declared that the 1967 Will Beneficiaries were clearly “interested parties” under the statute. Accordingly, the trial court bifurcated the trial and allowed the jury to first determine whether the 1989 Will was valid; if not, then the jury would secondly determine whether the 1967 Will had been revoked.
At the trial, held 29 January 2001 through 22 February 2001, the 1989 Will Propounders offered evidence that the 1989 Will was valid and attested. Joseph Thigpen testified he assisted Mr. Barnes in drafting the 1989 Will. Mr. Thigpen, and two attorneys (James Bachelor and Melvin Bowen), testified that Attorney James Bachelor who drafted the 1989 Will, read aloud each provision of the 1989 Will to Mr. Barnes and received his approval before making any changes or moving oh to a subsequent provision. Moreover, all three witnesses testified that Mr. Barnes, on the day of execution, knew his property, who he wanted to have that property, and the natural objects of his bounty.
Francis Long, a longtime friend of Lucille and Francis Barnes, testified for the 1989 Will Propounders that Mr. Barnes “had a fit and *149tore up the [1967] Will” in 1983 or 1984. The 1989 Will Propounders offered this testimony, over the objection of the 1967 Will Beneficiaries, to establish the chain of events leading up to the writing and drafting of the 1989 Will. The trial court rejected the 1967 Will Beneficiaries’ contention that Mrs. Long’s testimony was barred by North Carolina’s Dead Man’s Statute. Instead, the trial court held that Mrs. Long’s “testimony [was] inherently admissible” because it was against her pecuniary interest since she would take twenty percent under the 1967 Will, but only ten percent under the 1989 Will.
Thus, the 1989 Will Propounders established a prima facie case that the 1989 Will was valid, attested, and properly in probate. To rebut the prima facie case of the 1989 Will’s validity, the 1967 Will Beneficiaries presented evidence that Mr. Barnes was unduly influenced by Mr. Thigpen and lacked testamentary capacity. Specifically, the 1967 Will Beneficiaries elicited evidence tending to show that Mr. Thigpen occupied a fiduciary relationship with Mr. Barnes, and he substantially benefitted from the 1989 Will which he helped draft. The evidence showed that the 1989 Will named Mr. Thigpen as executor and trustee of the testamentary trust, with compensation for both positions. Moreover, Mr. Thigpen was granted complete discretion in the amount, type, and organizations to fund with the charitable contributions. In addition, the 1989 Will named Mr. Thigpen as a member of the “scholarship selection committee,” and gave him the discretionary power to appoint one of the other two members of the committee. Mr. Thigpen used this discretion to appoint his son, Joel Thigpen, as the other member of the scholarship selection committee.
Accordingly, the 1967 Will Beneficiaries argued that the 1989 Will gave Mr. Thigpen defacto authority over a substantial portion of Mr. Barnes’ multi-million dollar estate, as well as an unprecedented position of authority and power in Martin County to donate to charities of his choice, and to award scholarships to children and families of his choice. The 1967 Will Beneficiaries contended that Mr. Barnes did not bestow this power upon Mr. Thigpen independently. Rather, they argued, Mr. Thigpen took advantage of a mentally incapacitated man, and, through undue influence, created a will making him one of the most powerful individuals in Martin County.
Second, the 1967 Will Beneficiaries offered the testimony of nine witnesses who opined that Mr. Barnes lacked testamentary capacity to make the 1989 Will. For instance, John Roney, Mr. Barnes’ stockbroker and close friend, testified that he had a consistent *150relationship with Mr. Barnes between 1969 and 1989. Mr. Roney testified that, in his opinion, Mr. Barnes lacked mental capacity in 1989 to understand the effect of a will or the natural objects of his bounty. In support of this opinion, Mr. Roney testified he had contact with Mr. Barnes two or three times a week and, after 1980, Mr. Barnes began a process of slow mental deterioration resulting in Mrs. Barnes taking control of all important decisions related to his estate. The 1967 Will Beneficiaries also offered the expert testimony of two physicians who testified that in 1989 Mr. Barnes likely suffered from dementia.
In response to this attack on Mr. Barnes’ testamentary capacity, the 1989 Will Propounders offered the testimony of seven lay witnesses; Mr. Barnes’ treating physician; and one expert, who testified that on or around the day of executing the 1989 Will, Mr. Barnes knew the nature and extent of his property and the natural objects of his bounty. Dr. Michael McLeod, who was Mr. Barnes’ treating physician, testified that in 1990, Mr. Barnes might have had “mild dementia but was capable of taking care of himself.” To support this conclusion, Dr. McLeod testified that “even in [1990] . . . [Mr. Barnes] was able to report his general unhappiness with the fact that he had lost most of his friends through death.”
After a three-week trial, evidenced by over three-thousand pages of transcript, the first phase of the trial concluded. At the charge conference, the 1989 Will Propounders again raised the question of the 1967 Will Beneficiaries’ standing to caveat the 1989 Will. The 1989 Will Propounders stated:
Our position from the outset has been that the only reason they’re here is because of this alleged 67’ Will. And we believe the case law says that if the jury were to find first that it was revoked or destroyed with the intention to revoke it, [then the 1967 Will Beneficiaries] no longer have standing. . . . They are not heirs judge. They’re not heirs. The only reason they’re here is because they happened to be named in the 67’ document [for] which they do not have an original.
Accordingly, the 1989 Will Propounders’ proposed jury instructions which would have required the jury to answer “yes” or “no” to the preliminary question: “Did the deceased, Francis M. Barnes, destroy the purported paper writing dated May 25, 1967 with the intention of revoking it?” The trial court, however, did not adopt the 1989 Will Propounders’ proposed jury instructions. Instead, the trial *151court maintained the complete bifurcation, did not instruct the jury to consider the 1967 Will in the first phase, and permitted the 1989 Will to go to the jury on the issues of attestation, testamentary capacity, and undue influence.
On 22 February 2001, the jury returned a verdict regarding the 1989 Will. Although the jury found that the 1989 Will satisfied the formalities of attestation, the jury found the 1989 Will to be invalid on the grounds that Mr. Barnes lacked testamentary capacity.
Having reached the determination that the 1989 Will was invalid, the trial court next allowed the jury to consider evidence regarding whether the 1967 Will had been revoked. After an opening statement, the 1967 Will Beneficiaries presented three witnesses and a short closing argument. During this second phase of the trial, no adverse party existed, and, consequently, the evidence of the 1967 Will Beneficiaries was neither cross-examined nor rebutted. However, the jury was instructed that “all of the evidence [heard in the first phase], you may consider in [the second phase].” Accordingly, the jury was permitted to consider the testimony of Francis Long pertaining to the alleged destruction of the 1967 Will.
Following the second hearing, the jury concluded that the 1967 Will was executed according to the requirements of law, and was, therefore, a valid and attested will; however, the jury found that Mr. Barnes destroyed the 1967 Will with the intent to revoke it. Accordingly, the trial court concluded, as a matter of law, that the copy of the 1967 paper-writing was not the Last Will and Testament of Mr. Barnes.
II. The 1967 Will
We first consider the appeal by the 1967 Will Beneficiaries from the jury’s determination that the 1967 Will had been revoked. They primarily contend that the trial court committed error by denying their motion to exclude the testimony of Francis Long relating to Mr. Barnes’ destruction of the 1967 Will. They argue that Francis Long was an “interested” witness and, consequently, her testimony was barred under North Carolina’s Dead Man’s Statute. They further contend that the trial court allowed the jury to decide the issue of revocation without the benefit of hearing relevant and admissible evidence questioning Mrs. Long’s credibility, bias, and motive. Thus, the 1967 Will Beneficiaries ask this Court to remand this matter for a “new” jury finding on the question of revocation of the 1967 Will. *152However, after carefully reviewing the record, we find no error in the jury’s verdict.
[1] First, the 1967 Will Beneficiaries contend that Francis Long’s testimony was barred by the Dead Man’s Statute, and, therefore, the trial court committed prejudicial error by permitting the jury to consider the testimony on the “ultimate issue” of revocation. Under North Carolina’s Dead Man’s Statute a witness’ testimony is excluded “when it appears (1) that such a witness is a party, or interested in the event, (2) that his testimony relates to ... a communication with the deceased person, (3) that the action is against the personal representative of the deceased or a person deriving title or interest from, through or under the deceased, and (4) that the witness is testifying in his own behalf or interest.” Breedlove ex rel. Howard v. Aerotrim, U.S.A, Inc., 142 N.C. App. 447, 451, 543 S.E.2d 213, 216 (2001) (citing In re Will of Lamparter, 348 N.C. 45, 51, 497 S.E.2d 692, 695 (1998)) (quoting Godwin v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co., 259 N.C. 520, 528, 131 S.E.2d 456, 462 (1963)); see also N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 601(c) (2002).
Our Supreme Court has made it eminently clear that: “In caveat proceedings, in the absence of a clear exception to the Dead Man’s Statute, . . . testimony as to oral communications between the decedent and a beneficiary under the purported will” is not admissible. Will of Lamparter, 348 N.C. at 51, 497 S.E.2d at 695. One clear exception permits a witness to testify about the oral communications between the decedent and a beneficiary when the testimony is against the pecuniary interests of that witness. Sanderson v. Paul, 235 N.C. 56, 69 S.E.2d 156 (1952). Accordingly, “[testimony which would diminish one’s share would not be disqualifying under the statute.” Fender v. Fender (In re Fabian), 1997 S.C. App. LEXIS 39, at *9 (1997); see also In re Fowler’s Will, 159 N.C. 203, 74 S.E. 117 (1912) [hereinafter “Fowler”] (holding that witness’ testimony was admissible, where witness “[would] receive less as an heir, if the Will [was] set aside, than she [would] if it [was] sustained”).
“The ruling on competency of a witness is within the trial court’s discretion and its decision is not reversible except for clear abuse of discretion.” State v. Sills, 311 N.C. 370, 377, 317 S.E.2d 379, 383 (1984). “An abuse of discretion is a decision manifestly unsupported by reason or one so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision.” Briley v. Farabow, 348 N.C. 537, 547, 501 S.E.2d 649, 656 (1998).
*153In this case, the trial court held that Francis Long’s “testimony [was] inherently admissible” because it was against her pecuniary interest; Mrs. Long knew she would take twenty percent under the 1967 Will, but only ten percent under the 1989 Will. The trial court made this decision only after permitting an extended voir dire in which Mrs. Long admitted she would take twice the amount under the 1967 Will as she would inherit under the 1989 Will. An examination of both wills bears the truth of Mrs. Long’s superior pecuniary interest in the 1967 Will. Moreover, the trial court’s decision to permit Mrs. Long to testify was in accordance with our Supreme Court’s long-standing precedents in Fowler and Sanderson. Accordingly, the trial court properly admitted Mrs. Long’s testimony under an exception to the Dead Man’s Statute, and, therefore, this assignment of error is without merit.
[2] By their next assignment of error, the 1967 Will Beneficiaries contend the trial court erred by excluding evidence related to the Testamentary Trust created under the 1989 Will, through which Francis Long and her son had already received $140,986.00. The 1967 Beneficiaries argue that, by precluding mention of the Trust, the trial court prejudicially limited their ability to cross-examine Mrs. Long exposing the bias, motive, and inherent lack of credibility to Mrs. Long’s testimony. After carefully reviewing the record, we hold that this assignment of error was not properly preserved for appellate review.
Indeed, although the 1967 Will Beneficiaries argue that the trial court precluded all mention of the Trust, this assertion is not reflected in the trial transcript referenced in their assignment of error. The referenced sections in the transcript do reflect the trial court’s exclusion of such evidence as it pertained to Mr. Thigpen and the 1967 Will Beneficiaries’ theories of undue influence and testamentary capacity; however, the record does not reflect any discussion or trial court ruling related to the Trust and Mrs. Long’s possible influence and testimony. “Our Supreme Court and this Court have held that... appropriate objections must be made at trial to preserve the question of admissibility of the evidence on appeal.” Morin v. Sharp, 144 N.C. App. 369, 375, 549 S.E.2d 871, 874 (2001). Here, there is evidence of neither an objection nor that the 1967 Beneficiaries ever presented this issue to the trial court.
Moreover, the 1967 Beneficiaries failed to preserve the issue by making an offer of proof. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 103(a)(2) provides:
*154(a) Effect of erroneous ruling. — Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected, and
(2) Offer of Proof — In case the ruling is one excluding evidence, the substance of the evidence was made known to the court by offer or was apparent from the context within which questions were asked.
Here, the 1967 Beneficiaries were given a voir dire examination of Mrs. Long. Significantly, the 1967 Beneficiaries did not, at any time during the voir dire, cross-examine Mrs. Long about the money she or her son received from the trust. The 1967 Will Beneficiaries did not attempt to elicit this information during cross-examination within the presence of the jury. Accordingly, the 1967 Will Beneficiaries did not object to the trial court’s exclusion or make an offer of proof. Therefore, because (1) the 1967 Will Beneficiaries “made no offer of proof to the witness’ possible answers,” and (2) “the substance of the [evidence is not] apparent from the context within which the questions [were] asked” (because no questions were asked), the 1967 Will Beneficiaries “failed to preserve this issue for appellate review.” State v. Braxton, 352 N.C. 158, 208, 531 S.E.2d 428, 457 (2000).
III. The 1989 Will
[3] Having determined that the trial court committed no error in entering judgment on the jury’s determination that the 1967 Will had been revoked by Mr. Barnes, we now address the dispositive issue presented by the Propounders of the 1989 Will: Did the trial court err by permitting caveators, claiming an interest under a copy of a prior will, which under North Carolina law is presumptively revoked and invalid, to proceed against a subsequent attested will, without first rebutting the presumption of revocation and invalidity?
“Standing is a requirement that the plaintiff [has] been injured or threatened by injury or have a statutory right to institute an action.” Matter of Baby Boy Scearce, 81 N.C. App. 531, 541, 345 S.E.2d 404, 410 (1986). “ ‘Standing’ to sue means simply that the party has a sufficient stake in an otherwise justiciable controversy to obtain judicial resolution of that controversy.” Town of Ayden v. Town of Winterville, 143 N.C. App. 136, 140, 544 S.E.2d 821, 824 (2001) (quoting Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972)). “Standing is a jurisdictional issue[,] . . . [and] does not generally concern the ultimate *155merits of a lawsuit.” Town of Ayden, 143 N.C. App. at 140, 544 S.E.2d at 824 (quoting Sierra Club, 405 U.S. 727).
Accordingly, because standing is jurisdictional in nature, even if the alleged irregularities would, if proved, render the 1989 Will voidable by an appropriate caveator, this does not eliminate the requirement that the particular caveators in this case have standing. Town of Ayden, 143 N.C. App. at 140, 544 S.E.2d at 824. Consequently, standing is a threshold issue that must be addressed, and found to exist, before the merits of case are judicially resolved. To discern whether the beneficiaries under the revoked 1967 Will had standing to caveat, we must first examine the general origin of standing to caveat articulated in our probate laws.
North Carolina statutory law provides that: “No will shall be effectual to pass real or personal estate unless it shall have been duly proved and allowed in the probate court. . .” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 31-39 (2002). “The purpose of probate is to establish that the will in question has been executed in a proper manner and that it constitutes the last will of the deceased.” North Carolina Nat. Bank v. C.P. Robinson Co., Inc., 319 N.C. 63, 67, 352 S.E.2d 684, 687 (1987).
After a will is submitted for probate, the “right to contest the validity of a writing offered for probate ... is by statute . . . limited to ‘any person entitled under such will, or interested in the estate.’ ” In re Belvin’s Will, 261 N.C. 275, 276, 134 S.E.2d 225, 226 (1964) [hereinafter “Belvin”] (citing N.C. Gen. Stat. § 31-32). “An interest resting on sentiment or sympathy, or any basis other than the gain or loss of money or its equivalent, is not sufficient” to establish standing as a caveator, otherwise any person could protest a testator’s disposition of property and frustrate “the freedom of testation.” In re Thompson’s Will, 178 N.C. 540, 542, 101 S.E. 107, 108 (1919). Moreover, by statute, a potential caveator has three years to file a caveat after probate. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 31-32.
“The purpose of a caveat is to determine whether the paperwrit-ing purporting to be a will is in fact the last will and testament of the person for whom it is propounded.” In re Spinks, 7 N.C. App. 417, 423, 173 S.E.2d 1, 5 (1970). “An attack upon a will offered for probate must be direct and by caveat; a collateral attack is not permitted.” Baars v. Campbell University, Inc., 148 N.C. App. 408, 419, 558 S.E.2d 871, 878 (2002); see also In re Will of Charles, 263 N.C. 411, 415, 139 S.E.2d 588, 591 (1965); Johnson v. Stevenson, 269 N.C. 200, 202, 152 S.E.2d 214, 216 (1967); Casstevens v. Wagoner, 99 N.C. App. *156337, 338, 392 S.E.2d 776, 778 (1990). The right to contest a will by caveat is statutory and in derogation of the common law; accordingly, the section authorizing caveats must be strictly construed. In re Will of Winborne, 231 N.C. 463, 466, 57 S.E.2d 795, 799 (1950).
In North Carolina, our courts have generally recognized three fundamental classes of individuals that have standing as caveators based on their interest in the estate: “heirs-at-law, the next of kin, and persons claiming under a prior will.” James B. McLaughlin, Jr., and Richard T. Bowser, Wiggins Wills and Administration of Estates in North Carolina § 124 (2000); see e.g., Sigmund Sternberger Foundation, Inc. v. Tannenbaum, 273 N.C. 658, 674, 161 S.E.2d 116, 127 (1968) (persons claiming under a prior will); Brissie v. Craig, 232 N.C. 701, 705, 62 S.E.2d 330, 333 (1950) (heirs-at-law); Randolph v. Hughes, 89 N.C. 428, 1883 WL 2544, *2 (1883) (next of kin). For many years, the case law in North Carolina did not address whether beneficiaries under a prior will had standing as caveators if they were not related by blood or marriage to the testator. However, in Belvin and Tannenbaum, our Supreme Court clarified this ambiguity by holding that “beneficiaries under a prior paper writing are persons interested . . . and are entitled to file a caveat to a subsequent instrument probated in common form, notwithstanding they are not heirs of the deceased.” Tannenbaum, 273 N.C. at 674, 161 S.E.2d at 127; see also Belvin, 261 N.C. at 276-77, 134 S.E.2d at 226-27.
Here, the 1967 Will Beneficiaries were neither the heirs-at-law nor the next of kin of Mr. Barnes. Rather, the 1967 Will Beneficiaries claimed standing as persons benefitting under a prior will; thus, they claimed standing as caveators under the reasoning in Tannenbaum and Belvin. Moreover, the 1967 Beneficiaries rely on our reasoning in In re Will of Hester, 84 N.C. App. 585, 353 S.E.2d 643 (1987) [hereinafter “Hester”], rev’d on other grounds, 320 N.C. 738, 360 S.E.2d 801 (1987), to support the claim that they had standing to challenge the 1989 Will as caveators. In Hester, we noted and held that:
Propounders contend that ‘[a] beneficiary under a prior will does have standing to caveat a will but such a beneficiary must, in the same proceeding, prove the interest alleged.’ We disagree. . . . Here, . . . the caveators alleged the probated will was invalid on grounds of undue influence and lack of mental capacity and alleged that they are beneficiaries under a will of the deceased made at a time when the testator possessed mental capacity. If the facts be as caveators allege, they are interested in the estate. [However,] [b]ecause the proceeding is in rem, the proceed*157ing must go on until the issue devisavit vel non is appropriately answered.
Accordingly, the 1967 Will Beneficiaries urge this Court to accept the same reasoning, which does not require a showing of standing pursuant to a prior will until the issue of devisavit vel non is resolved pursuant to the subsequent and probated will.
However, the case sub judice presents one wrinkle that neither Tannenbaum, Belvin nor Hester contained: The 1967 Will Beneficiaries did not produce the original will. Instead, the 1967 Beneficiaries produced only a copy of an alleged 1967 Will. “It is well established [in North Carolina] that when a will last seen in the testator’s possession cannot be found at death a rebuttable presumption arises that the will was revoked.” Matter of Will of Jolly, 89 N.C. App. 576, 577, 366 S.E.2d 600, 601 (1988) (citing In re Will of Hedgepeth, 150 N.C. 245, 63 S.E. 1025 (1909)). Following the logic of this presumption, namely that the will has been revoked, most assuredly the presumption extends to the beneficiaries under that will such that they are presumed by law not to be beneficiaries unless they overcome that presumption that the will was not revoked.5 Consequently, the 1967 Will Beneficiaries are not beneficiaries at all, rather they are “alleged beneficiaries.” In essence, they are individuals who must rebut the presumption that the 1967 Will was not revoked in order to gain the status of being beneficiaries. Otherwise, they are no more than beneficiaries under a will that is presumed to have been revoked. Whereas the beneficiaries in Hester did, in fact, benefit under a prior will, the alleged 1967 Will Beneficiaries are claiming an interest in Barnes’ estate by virtue of a paper writing that was presumptively invalid as a will under North Carolina law. Indeed, the jury determined that the 1967 Will Beneficiaries did not present evidence to overcome that presumption; accordingly, the trial court entered judgment holding that the 1967 Will had been revoked.
It seems an obvious waste of judicial economy, an affront to the sacred right of testation, and an unreasonable and unjust expectation to require executors and beneficiaries of a will to defend that will upon a caveat from individuals who carry a legal presumption of invalidity. Rather, such “alleged beneficiaries” must, at the very minimum, rebut the presumption and establish standing before a trial on the merits can ensue.
*158The dissent contends that “even though ... [a] caveator[] [with merely a copy of a prior will has] the burden of overcoming a presumption that the ... will had been revoked... they [still have] standing to bring [a] caveat.” In support of this proposition, the dissent makes two fundamental arguments: (1) “No authority has been cited and none found holding that in a North Carolina will caveat proceeding, the standing of individuals claiming under a copy of a will must be determined first”; and (2) “The presumption [of revocation] tends to support the logic of first determining the validity of the later will, since it makes it more likely that the later will is the last will.”
As to the dissent’s first argument, in North Carolina, as well as in every other court in this country, standing is the threshold issue in every proceeding. See e.g., Izumi Seimitsu Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha v. U.S. Philips Corp., 510 U.S. 27 (1993) (noting that “standing [is] a ‘threshold inquiry’ that ‘in no way depends on the merits’ of the case.”). Seemingly, the dissent proffers that in caveat proceedings the requirement of standing is quite different than in ordinary proceedings. As noted, however, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 31-32 precisely defines who has standing to caveat a will. Section 31-32 specifically limits standing to caveat to “any person entitled under such Will, or interested in the estate.” In the case sub judice, as noted, the caveators claim standing under a copy of a prior will. Apparently, the dissent believes that there is no tenable legal distinction that can be made between a prior will, and a copy of a prior will, for purposes of standing. Although North Carolina has not squarely faced this issue, decisions from other jurisdictions are instructive. In Werner v. Frederick, 94 F.2d 627, 630 (D.C. 1937), for instance, the United States Court of Appeals, in holding that a caveator must first rebut presumptions of revocation before attacking the validity of a will, noted that:
The reason for requiring [the caveator to prove] an interest. . . before an attack upon the will may proceed, is that the estate of a decedent ought not be subjected to the trouble and expense of an attack, except by one who, if the attack prove successful, would have some legal claim upon the estate. And if the former will relied upon, though executed, had been revoked by the testator in some manner other than by the later will, if valid, whatever interest might have arisen in the beneficiary by virtue of execution of the prior will would have ceased, so that at the time of his attack upon the later will he would have no standing.
Thus, the Werner Court concluded that in the interest of the pro-pounders, and in the interest of judicial economy, a caveator must *159prove a “legal interest” in the estate, before a forum is provided to challenge the will.
As to the dissent’s second observation, namely that “logic” dictates resolving the validity of the last will before determining whether the caveators have standing to challenge that will’s validity”; we disagree. What purpose would a presumption of revocation serve if the caveators, the individuals burdened by that presumption, were not required, at a minimum, to rebut that presumption before requiring the propounders and the state judicial system to enter into protracted litigation? Our Supreme Court, in the case of In re Wellborn’s Will, made this point quite succinctly in finding that:
When [a] will [is] produced without the name of [the testator], this [is] prima facie evidence of a revocation, and the law presumed that it had been revoked. It is true this presumption might be repelled, but the burden of doing so was on the propounder. If this was not so, it would be to require the caveator to rebut the presumption that was in his favor.
165 N.C. at 640, 81 S.E. at 1025. See also McBride v. Jones, 494 S.E.2d 319, 321 (Ga. 1998) (where propounder produced a copy of the will, propounder was required to rebut presumption of invalidity before the “the burden shifted to the caveator to prove that the proffered will [was] not valid.”). Accordingly, in our view, logic dictates that the one who is burdened by a presumption of invalidity should be required to shed that presumption before gaining the right to challenge a properly probated original will that is presumed to be valid.
Here, neither the trial court nor the jury made a preliminary finding that the 1967 Will Beneficiaries had rebutted the presumption that they did not have standing to caveat the 1989 Will as interested parties. Instead, in the second phase of the jury trial, the jury returned a verdict invalidating the 1967 Will because Barnes destroyed the 1967 Will with an intent to revoke it. Indeed, the jury in effect found that the 1967 Will Beneficiaries did not have standing to file a caveat against the subsequently made 1989 Will.
In this light, we hold that the trial court erred by not first allowing the jury to determine whether the 1967 Will Beneficiaries had presented sufficient evidence to rebut the legal presumption that the 1967 Will had been revoked.6 Moreover, since we uphold the jury’s *160determination that the 1967 Will Beneficiáries did not rebut the presumption of invalidity of the 1967 Will, then the 1989 Will must be upheld because the 1967 Will Beneficiaries lacked standing to prosecute a caveat against the 1989 Will.7 Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s judgment resulting from the caveat proceeding against the 1989 Will.8
*161IV. The Heirs-At-Law
[4] A final question remains: On remand, do the heirs-at:law have any legal recourse? The dissent contends the heirs-at-law do have recourse. For the reasons stated herein, we disagree.
As noted, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 31-32, any person (1) interested in an estate, (2) within three years of an application for probate, (3) may appear before the clerk of the Superior Court and (4) enter a caveat. In the case sub judice, the Propounders of the 1989 Will filed an application for probate on 30 November 1996. Accordingly, on 30 November 1999 the statute of limitations expired for any interested party to appear before the clerk of the Superior Court and file a caveat.
On 17 September 1998 the Propounders of a 1967 Will filed a caveat to the 1989 Will. Pursuant to Section 31-33:
Such caveator shall cause notice of the caveat proceeding to be given to all devisees, legatees, or other persons interested .... The notice . . . shall call upon [the interested parties] to appear and make themselves proper parties to the proceeding if they so chose. . . . [T]he judge shall require any [interested party] ... to align themselves and to file bond .... Upon the failure of any party to file such bond, the judge shall dismiss that party from the proceeding but that party shall be bound by the proceeding.
On 23 January 2001, the Clerk of the Superior Court mailed a Supplemental Citation to Mr. Barnes’ heirs-at-law. The Supplemental Citation gave Mr. Barnes’ heirs-at-law notice of the caveat, and informed them of their statutory right to “appear and align [themselves] with the Propounder of the 1989 Will, the Caveators of [the] 1989 Will ... or [to] identify [themselves] as a Caveator to the 1967 Will.” The heirs-at-law chose not to align themselves with any of the parties to the proceeding, identify themselves as Caveators to the 1967 Will, actively participate in the first or second phase of the trial, and failed to file a bond.
Accordingly, pursuant to Section 31-33, the trial judge should have dismissed the heirs-at-law from the proceeding for not filing a bond, although the heirs-at-law would have retained the prospect of benefitting from the proceeding. The trial court, however, did not dismiss the heirs-at-law from the proceeding. Accordingly, although the heirs-at-law had the faint hope, which materialized, of taking under *162the laws of intestate succession if both wills were invalidated, the heirs-at-law did not retain the right to file a separate caveat.9
The North Carolina Supreme Court, as well as this Court, has consistently held that “the statute permitting caveats is in derogation of the common law,” and, therefore, “must be strictly construed.” In re Winborne’s Will, 231 N.C. at 466, 57 S.E.2d at 799; In re Will of Evans, 46 N.C. App. 72, 74, 264 S.E.2d 387, 388 (1980). Moreover, these same cases hold that the statute of limitations “is a condition attached to the right. Hence, upon the expiration of the [three year statue] . . . the right [to caveat] ceases to exist.” Id. Accordingly, on remand, the heirs-at-law do not have legal recourse • against the 1989 Will.
In sum, we uphold the jury’s finding that the 1967 Will Beneficiaries failed to rebut the presumption that the 1967 Will had been revoked, and therefore, the 1967 Will Beneficiaries did not have standing to challenge by caveat the 1989 Will. It follows that since the 1967 Beneficiaries did not have standing to challenge the 1989 Will, and the heirs-at-law neither aligned themselves as parties nor did they timely file a caveat against the 1989 Will, the judgment arising from the caveat proceeding against the 1989 Will is vacated.
No error in part, vacated in part.
Judge TIMMONS-GOODSON concurs.
Judge HUDSON concurring in part, dissenting in part.