{ "id": 8519613, "name": "IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF HAZEL CLINE, JR., Decedent", "name_abbreviation": "In re the Estate of Cline", "decision_date": "1991-05-21", "docket_number": "No. 9028SC1077", "first_page": "83", "last_page": "85", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "103 N.C. App. 83" } ], "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": "65 ALR2d 727", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 2d", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "30 ALR3d 858", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 3d", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "45 S.E. 465", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1903, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "133 N.C. 86", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8656311 ], "year": 1903, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/133/0086-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 249, "char_count": 3799, "ocr_confidence": 0.768, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.20547529991130756 }, "sha256": "8056ae652e22e03c1e266b14d2247a598e60063f5871f5f3f00478ea4863fbe9", "simhash": "1:f74d62fcaca5f160", "word_count": 608 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:27:13.805826+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges WELLS and EAGLES concur." ], "parties": [ "IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF HAZEL CLINE, JR., Decedent" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "HEDRICK, Chief Judge.\nNo question is raised on appeal regarding that portion of Judge Burroughs\u2019 order pertaining to spousal support during the decedent\u2019s previous period of incompetency. Thus, that portion of the order will be affirmed.\nDefendant contends the trial court erred in concluding that the antenuptial agreement did not bar plaintiff from receiving a year\u2019s allowance pursuant to G.S. 30-15. Defendant also contends the trial court erred in allotting plaintiff a life estate in the marital home since the antenuptial agreement would bar such an award.\nPrior to their marriage, Hazel Cline, Jr., and Mildred Irene Smith entered into an agreement whereby each reciprocally released, renounced and quitclaimed any interest acquired by virtue of the marriage in and to any real or personal property then owned or thereafter acquired, and specifically renounced and disclaimed any right to inherit or participate in the distribution of any real and personal property of the other spouse.\nOur Supreme Court has held that a widow is barred from recovering a year\u2019s allowance by an antenuptial agreement relinquishing all claim to any property of her husband. Perkins v. Brinkley, 133 N.C. 86, 45 S.E. 465 (1903). Plaintiff in the case at bar argues that the discussion in Perkins of the premarital agreement\u2019s effect on the year\u2019s allowance was mere dicta. That argument is not persuasive.\nWe hold Perkins is controlling. The record discloses that the antenuptial agreement released the estate from any claims by plaintiff as wife or widow of Hazel Cline, and shows that she had no claim to any property of the decedent or his estate, except for the award of spousal support during Mr. Cline\u2019s incompetency.\nThus, that portion of the judgment awarding plaintiff a year\u2019s allowance of $5,000.00 and awarding her a life estate in the marital home will be vacated. That portion of the judgment awarding plaintiff spousal support during Mr. Cline\u2019s incompetency up to the date of his death will be affirmed.\nVacated in part; affirmed in part.\nJudges WELLS and EAGLES concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "HEDRICK, Chief Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Devere C. Lentz & Associates, by John M. Olesiuk, for executor, appellant.", "Gum & Hillier, by Ingrid Friesen, for widow, appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF HAZEL CLINE, JR., Decedent\nNo. 9028SC1077\n(Filed 21 May 1991)\nHusband and Wife \u00a7 2.1 (NCI3d)\u2014 antenuptial agreement \u2014 all claims to property relinquished \u2014 widow not entitled to year\u2019s allowance on life estate in marital home\nPlaintiff widow was barred from recovering a year\u2019s allowance and from receiving a life estate in the marital home by her antenuptial agreement which relinquished all claim to any property of her husband.\nAm Jur 2d, Husband and Wife \u00a7 277.\nWaiver of right to widow\u2019s allowance by antenuptial agreement. 30 ALR3d 858.\nOperation and effect of antenuptial agreements to waive or bar surviving spouse\u2019s right to probate homestead or surviving family\u2019s similar homestead right or exemption. 65 ALR2d 727.\nAPPEAL by executor from Burroughs (Robert M.j, Judge. Judgment entered 12 June 1990 in Superior Court, BUNCOMBE County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 10 April 1991.\nThis is a civil proceeding wherein plaintiff, widow of Hazel Cline, Jr., deceased, sought spousal support from the guardian of her incompetent husband and a surviving spouse\u2019s year\u2019s allowance pursuant to G.S. 30-15 from the executor of her husband\u2019s estate after his death.\nOn 12 June 1990, Superior Court Judge Robert Burroughs made detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law and ordered that Mrs. Cline receive $4,121.00 in spousal support during her husband\u2019s previous incompetency, $5,000.00 as her year\u2019s allowance, and that she be allowed to remain in residence in the marital home rent free during her lifetime. Defendant, executor of the estate, appealed.\nDevere C. Lentz & Associates, by John M. Olesiuk, for executor, appellant.\nGum & Hillier, by Ingrid Friesen, for widow, appellee." }, "file_name": "0083-01", "first_page_order": 113, "last_page_order": 115 }