{
  "id": 8524048,
  "name": "PAMELA WRAY McCOLLUM v. PHILLIP J. McCOLLUM v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF REIDSVILLE",
  "name_abbreviation": "McCollum v. McCollum",
  "decision_date": "1991-03-19",
  "docket_number": "No. 9017DC915",
  "first_page": "347",
  "last_page": "349",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "102 N.C. App. 347"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "41 ALR4th 416",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 4th",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "331 S.E.2d 682",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "314 N.C. 80",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4687900
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/314/0080-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "328 S.E.2d 840",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "74 N.C. App. 550",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8525345
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/74/0550-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 251,
    "char_count": 4272,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.763,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20552974323985684
    },
    "sha256": "f4ab950d56cc4c08d00d9d2a4a35a171a4de9594432e8fbaaea827c687a23593",
    "simhash": "1:4cceea5635231dfe",
    "word_count": 700
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:20:04.252791+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Johnson and Phillips concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "PAMELA WRAY McCOLLUM v. PHILLIP J. McCOLLUM v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF REIDSVILLE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WYNN, Judge.\nPlaintiff, Pamela Wray McCollum, originated this action on 16 January 1990 by filing a complaint whereby she sought an absolute divorce and equitable distribution of the marital property. Defendant, Phillip J. McCollum, filed an answer in which he asserted a counterclaim against plaintiff and a third-party complaint against third-party defendant, First National Bank of Reidsville (\u201cBank\u201d). Defendant alleged that plaintiff fraudulently obtained an equity line of credit in the amount of $28,000.00 from the Bank, secured by a deed of trust on the marital home, without his knowledge and consent and through his forged signature which was purportedly \u201cwitnessed\u201d by Bank employees. The Bank filed a motion to dismiss the third-party complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The trial court allowed the Bank\u2019s motion and by order dated 21 May 1990, dismissed the third-party complaint. From this order, Mr. McCollum appealed.\nThe sole question before us is whether the court erred by dismissing the third-party complaint. We hold that it did not.\nRule 14(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure governs the filing of a third-party complaint. This rule allows a defendant, as a third-party plaintiff, to file a summons and complaint \u201cupon a person not a party to the action who is or may be liable to him for all or part of the plaintiff\u2019s claim against him. . . .\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 14(a) (1990). Plaintiff\u2019s claims against Mr. McCollum were for an absolute divorce and for an equitable distribution of the marital property. Obviously, the Bank could not be held liable to Mr. McCollum should an absolute divorce be granted. Mr. McCollum argues that the Bank could be liable to him should his share of the marital estate be reduced by the amount of the indebtedness. We disagree. If the transaction resulting in the deed of trust is found to have been entered into without Mr. McCollum\u2019s consent and knowledge, the debts secured by the deed of trust would be held to be separate to Mrs. McCollum. See Branch Bank ing and Trust Co. v. Wright, 74 N.C. App. 550, 328 S.E.2d 840 (1985). Any misconduct by Mrs. McCollum affecting the value of the property would also be considered in distributing the property. See Smith v. Smith, 314 N.C. 80, 331 S.E.2d 682 (1985). Conversely, if the transaction is valid, the Bank clearly has no liability.\nThe order is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nJudges Johnson and Phillips concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WYNN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "No brief filed for plaintiff-appellee, Pamela Wray McCollum.",
      "Max D. Ballinger, for defendant and third-party plaintiff-appellant, Phillip J. McCollum.",
      "Carruthers & Roth, by Kenneth R. Keller and Grady L. Shields, for third-party defendant-appellee, First National Bank of Reidsville."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "PAMELA WRAY McCOLLUM v. PHILLIP J. McCOLLUM v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF REIDSVILLE\nNo. 9017DC915\n(Filed 19 March 1991)\nRules of Civil Procedure \u00a7 14 (NCI3d)\u2014 divorce and equitable distribution action \u2014bank not a proper third-party defendant\nIn an action for divorce and equitable distribution, the trial court did not err in dismissing defendant\u2019s third-party complaint against a bank from which plaintiff allegedly fraudulently obtained an equity line of credit secured by a deed of trust on the marital home, since a defendant, as a third-party plaintiff, may file a summons and complaint upon a person not a party to the action who is or may be liable to him for all or part of plaintiff\u2019s claim against him; the bank could not be held liable to defendant should an absolute divorce be granted; if the transaction resulting in the deed of trust was found to have been entered into without defendant\u2019s consent and knowledge, the debts secured by the deed of trust would be held separate to plaintiff; and any misconduct by plaintiff affecting the value of the property would also be considered in distributing the property.\nAm Jur 2d, Divorce and Separation \u00a7\u00a7 863, 903, 929, 940, 941, 951.\nSpouse\u2019s dissipation of marital assets prior to divorce as factor in divorce court\u2019s determination of property division. 41 ALR4th 416.\nAppeal by defendant/third-party plaintiff, Phillip J. McCollum, from order entered 21 May 1990 in ROCKINGHAM County District Court by Judge Phillip W. Allen. Heard in the Court of Appeals 22 February 1991.\nNo brief filed for plaintiff-appellee, Pamela Wray McCollum.\nMax D. Ballinger, for defendant and third-party plaintiff-appellant, Phillip J. McCollum.\nCarruthers & Roth, by Kenneth R. Keller and Grady L. Shields, for third-party defendant-appellee, First National Bank of Reidsville."
  },
  "file_name": "0347-01",
  "first_page_order": 377,
  "last_page_order": 379
}