{
  "id": 8524409,
  "name": "MARY FAULKENBERRY POSTON v. DWIGHT EDWARD POSTON",
  "name_abbreviation": "Poston v. Poston",
  "decision_date": "1993-12-07",
  "docket_number": "No. 9219DC1047",
  "first_page": "849",
  "last_page": "851",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "112 N.C. App. 849"
    }
  ],
  "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": "252 N.J. Super. 230",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.J. Super.",
      "case_ids": [
        333232
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "allegation that wife had engaged in adulterous affair for last eleven years of parties' marriage does not state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "allegation that wife had engaged in adulterous affair for last eleven years of parties' marriage does not state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nj-super/252/0230-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "356 S.E.2d 378",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "86 N.C. App. 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        12121342
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/86/0001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "418 S.E.2d 668",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1992,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "331 N.C. 558",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2497251,
        2498471
      ],
      "year": 1992,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/331/0558-01",
        "/nc/331/0558-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "414 S.E.2d 347",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1992,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "105 N.C. App. 446",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8523809
      ],
      "year": 1992,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/105/0446-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "63 N.C. 451",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11277637
      ],
      "year": 1869,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "453"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/63/0451-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "355 S.E.2d 838",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 N.C. App. 669",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        12170267
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/85/0669-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "254 S.E.2d 611",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "622"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "297 N.C. 181",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8568312
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "196"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/297/0181-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "430 S.E.2d 271",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "110 N.C. App. 355",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8525595
      ],
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/110/0355-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 364,
    "char_count": 5541,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.779,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.708273101117744e-08,
      "percentile": 0.45370907724736076
    },
    "sha256": "8095a52ac398b437e22a0d808e57e4cd0d5a032346fd2284f58d06c8406bf4b2",
    "simhash": "1:09c5fde0455904b2",
    "word_count": 878
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:48:17.524906+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge ARNOLD and Judge JOHN concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "MARY FAULKENBERRY POSTON v. DWIGHT EDWARD POSTON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WYNN, Judge.\nAppellee brought action for absolute divorce and equitable distribution of marital property. Appellant filed an answer and counterclaims seeking damages for breach of the marriage contract and covenant and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted appellee\u2019s motion to dismiss the counterclaims for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. From that order, appellant appeals.\nA motion to dismiss under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule (12)(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of a complaint to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Kuder v. Schroeder, 110 N.C. App. 355, 430 S.E.2d 271 (1993); Stanback v. Stanback, 297 N.C. 181, 254 S.E.2d 611 (1979). Although the allegations of the complaint are taken as true, to withstand the motion the complaint must nevertheless be sufficient to satisfy the elements of at least some recognized claim. Harris v. NCNB Nat\u2019l Bank of North Carolina, 85 N.C. App. 669, 355 S.E.2d 838 (1987).\nIn his first counterclaim, appellant alleges appellee \u201cnotwithstanding her marriage vows and the marriage contract and covenant . . . has violated, and, presently, does violate the stipulations, agreements and conditions of the herein referred to contract and covenant.\u201d In his brief, appellant contends the mutual obligations made at the marriage ceremony are \u201cbetween single persons who are about to enter into and are entering into the contractual status of husband and wife,\u201d and argues his wife can be sued for breach of this contract. We find no support in the law of this State for such a claim and therefore hold that the trial court properly dismissed this counterclaim.\nIt has long been held in this State that:\nThe marriage relation is a peculiar and important one. The courts treat it as a contract only in the sense that contract\u2014 consent of the parties \u2014 precedes it and is essential to its validity. But, when formed, it is more than a civil contract; it is a relation, an institution, affecting not merely the parties, like business contracts, but offspring particularly, and society generally.\nState v. Hairston, 63 N.C. 451, 453 (1869).\nWe therefore conclude that commercial contract principles are not applicable to the marriage vows.\nIn his second counterclaim, appellant charges that appellee \u201crepeatedly exposed her mind and spirit and body to the sexual advances of a male resident of Rowan County, North Carolina.\u201d Appellant contends this conduct caused him \u201cextreme mental anguish, distress, anxiety, physical damage, emotional damage, and financial losses and damage.\u201d Appellant asserts he met the requirements to establish a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress and that the trial court erred in dismissing this claim. We disagree.\nThe elements of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress are: (1) extreme and outrageous conduct; (2) which is intended to cause and does in fact cause; (3) severe emotional distress. Wilson v. Bellamy, 105 N.C. App. 446, 414 S.E.2d 347, disc. rev. denied, 331 N.C. 558, 418 S.E.2d 668 (1992). Liability under this tort arises when the defendant\u2019s \u201c \u2018conduct exceeds all bounds usually tolerated by decent society\u2019 and the conduct \u2018causes mental distress of a very serious kind.\u2019 \u201d Stanback, 297 N.C. at 196, 254 S.E.2d at 622 (quoting Prosser, The Law of Torts, \u00a7 12 (4th ed. 1971)).\nWe find that appellant\u2019s allegation of adultery does not evidence the extreme and outrageous conduct which is essential to this cause of action. See Johnson v. Bollinger, 86 N.C. App. 1, 356 S.E.2d 378 (1987). See also Ruprecht v. Ruprecht, 252 N.J. Super. 230, 599 A.2d 604 (1991) (allegation that wife had engaged in adulterous affair for last eleven years of parties\u2019 marriage does not state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress). Therefore the trial court properly dismissed this claim under Rule 12(b)(6).\nFor the reasons stated, the trial court\u2019s order is\nAffirmed.\nChief Judge ARNOLD and Judge JOHN concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WYNN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Barbara D. Hollingsworth, P.A., by Barbara D. Hollingsworth, for plaintiff-appellee.",
      "Cruse and Spence, by Thomas K. Spence, for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MARY FAULKENBERRY POSTON v. DWIGHT EDWARD POSTON\nNo. 9219DC1047\n(Filed 7 December 1993)\n1. Husband and Wife \u00a7 1 (NCI4th) \u2014 marriage vows \u2014not civil contract \u2014commercial contract principles not applicable\nThe trial court properly granted plaintiff-wife\u2019s motion for a dismissal under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 12(b)(6) of defendant-husband\u2019s counterclaim for breach of contract in an action for divorce and equitable distribution where defendant contended that plaintiff could be sued for breach of the mutual obligations made at the marriage ceremony. Commercial contract principles are not applicable to the marriage vows.\nAm Jur 2d, Husband and Wife \u00a7\u00a7 5-7.\n2. Trespass \u00a7 2 (NCI3d)\u2014 adultery \u2014intentional infliction of emotional distress \u2014not extreme and outrageous conduct\nThe trial court did not err in an action for divorce and equitable distribution by granting plaintiff-wife\u2019s motion for a dismissal under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 12(b)(6) of defendant-husband\u2019s counterclaim for intentional infliction of emotional distress arising from plaintiff\u2019s adultery. Defendant\u2019s allegation of adultery does not evidence the extreme and outrageous conduct which is essential to this cause of action.\nAm Jur 2d, Trial \u00a7 770.\nAppeal by defendant from order entered 29 July 1992 by Chief Judge Adam C. Grant in Cabarrus County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 29 September 1993.\nBarbara D. Hollingsworth, P.A., by Barbara D. Hollingsworth, for plaintiff-appellee.\nCruse and Spence, by Thomas K. Spence, for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0849-01",
  "first_page_order": 879,
  "last_page_order": 881
}