{ "id": 11871216, "name": "CINDY JO BATTEN, Administratrix of the Estate of BILLY GENE BATTEN, Deceased, Plaintiff v. BETTY LEE BATTEN, Defendant", "name_abbreviation": "Batten v. Batten", "decision_date": "1997-03-18", "docket_number": "No. COA96-418", "first_page": "685", "last_page": "688", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "125 N.C. App. 685" } ], "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": "26 ALR4th 325", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 4th", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "52 ALR3d 1334", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 3d", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "29 ALR3d 1167", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 3d", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 2944", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)(2) and (b)(2)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "388 S.E.2d 768", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "326 N.C. 359", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 5306157 ], "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/326/0359-01" ] }, { "cite": "380 S.E.2d 782", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 12, "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "783" }, { "page": "783" }, { "page": "784" }, { "page": "784" }, { "page": "787" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "94 N.C. App. 428", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8527363 ], "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/94/0428-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 29-14", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)(2) and (b)(2)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 397, "char_count": 7156, "ocr_confidence": 0.75, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.24375359335621496 }, "sha256": "2eea4fdef0b9d07264d897aec29946c1e71cb6921f0bdae94fd780c79ccdc952", "simhash": "1:0937e16adddadee8", "word_count": 1165 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:18:02.941264+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges LEWIS and MARTIN, Mark D. concur." ], "parties": [ "CINDY JO BATTEN, Administratrix of the Estate of BILLY GENE BATTEN, Deceased, Plaintiff v. BETTY LEE BATTEN, Defendant" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "WALKER, Judge.\nOn 19 August 1983, defendant Betty Lee Batten married Billy Gene Batten, now deceased. The Battens separated on 19 September 1984 and executed a deed of separation whereby each relinquished all rights of inheritance bestowed on them by virtue of their marriage. In accordance with the deed of separation, defendant quitclaimed to Mr. Batten her interest in all real property owned by him at the time of the separation in exchange for $3,000.00. The Battens were divorced on 20 February 1987.\nOn 31 December 1987, the Battens remarried and lived together as husband and wife until Mr. Batten\u2019s death on 4 May 1995. Mr. Batten died intestate survived by defendant and three daughters from a previous marriage.\nOn 14 November 1995, Cindy Jo Batten, one of Mr. Batten\u2019s daughters and the administratrix of his estate, filed a petition for a declaratory judgment seeking to determine defendant\u2019s inheritance rights. Defendant responded and asserted her rights as a surviving spouse pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 29-14(a)(2) and (b)(2) (1984). The trial court held that defendant was entitled to inherit from Mr. Batten\u2019s personal property, but was not entitled to inherit from his real property. The court concluded:\nThat the Deed of Separation in Book 359, page 624, Quitclaim Deed in Book 359, page 628, and receipt in Book 368, page 853, created a release and surrender by Betty Lee Batten of the real property of the decedent; that the deed she executed and recorded in Book 359, page 628 was made for a valuable consideration, was an \u201cexecuted\u201d provision and is valid and binding under G.S. 52-10 and the principles espoused in Tucci.\n(T. at 29). Both parties appealed the trial court\u2019s decision.\nOn appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred in determining that she is not entitled to inherit from Mr. Batten\u2019s real property. In addition, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in determining that defendant is entitled to recover from Mr. Batten\u2019s personal property.\nIn its order, the trial court relied on the case of In re Estate of Tucci, 94 N.C. App. 428, 380 S.E.2d 782 (1989), aff\u2019d per curiam, 326 N.C. 359, 388 S.E.2d 768 (1990), which plaintiff contends is controlling here. In that case, Mr. and Mrs. Tucci married in 1978 and separated in 1983. Id. at 429, 380 S.E.2d at 783. The Tuccis executed a \u201cseparation/property settlement agreement,\u201d whereby they released each other from the duty of support and from other rights arising by virtue of their marriage, including Mr. Tucci\u2019s right to inherit from his wife. Id. at 430, 380 S.E.2d at 783. The agreement also provided that \u201cshould at any time in the future the parties resume marital cohabitation in any respect that the provisions of the Separation Agreement and Property Settlement are and shall remain valid and fully enforceable, and of full legal force and effect.\u201d Id. In December of 1983, the Tuccis reconciled and cohabited until September 1985. Id. Thereafter, the couple entered a consent judgment for divorce from bed and board, which was subsequently set aside as void. Id.\nIn March of 1986, Mrs. Tucci died. Id. After her will was probated, Mr. Tucci filed a notice of dissent. Id. The clerk of superior court concluded that the Tuccis\u2019 reconciliation rescinded the terms of the separation agreement, and that because Mr. Tucci\u2019s right to dissent was executory, he could lawfully dissent from Mrs. Tucci\u2019s will. Id. at 431-32, 380 S.E.2d at 784. The trial court affirmed the clerk\u2019s order. Id. at 432, 380 S.E.2d at 784.\nMrs. Tucci\u2019s estate appealed and this Court held that the Tucci\u2019s reconciliation did not rescind the separation agreement because the property settlement provisions of the agreement were not conditioned on the Tucci\u2019s continued separation. Id. at 437, 380 S.E.2d at 787. Because the agreement specifically stated that it was to remain in effect in the event that the Tuccis reconciled, and because there was no evidence of rescission of the agreement, Mr. Tucci was barred from dissenting from his wife\u2019s will. Id.\nWe find Tucci to be distinguishable from the present case. First, the Tucci\u2019s agreement specifically stated that it was to remain in force in the event that the Tuccis reconciled. Here, there is no such provision in the agreement or any other evidence indicating an intent for the agreement to remain in force in the event that the Battens reconciled. In addition, the Tuccis never divorced, they simply separated for a period of time and subsequently resumed cohabitation. In our case, the Battens divorced and then remarried, creating a new marriage contract and legal status. Therefore, Tucci is inapplicable to the facts of the present case.\nNotwithstanding the fact that the Battens entered into a separation agreement during their first marriage, upon their subsequent remarriage, the provisions of the agreement were no longer effective. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, when a married couple enters into a separation agreement, later divorces, and then remarries, each party to the marriage regains all rights and privileges incident to marriage. Since there is no evidence that the Battens intended for the separation agreement to remain in effect in the event that they reconciled or remarried, defendant obtained the rights of a surviving spouse under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 2944(a)(2) and (b)(2) when she remarried Mr. Batten and is entitled to inherit from his real property. It follows as a matter of law that if the Battens\u2019 subsequent remarriage negated the terms of the separation agreement regarding Mr. Batten\u2019s real property, their remarriage also negated the terms regarding his personal property. Thus, the trial court erred when it concluded that defendant was not entitled to inherit from Mr. Batten\u2019s real property.\nReversed and remanded.\nJudges LEWIS and MARTIN, Mark D. concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "WALKER, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "David S. Tedder for plaintiff-appellee.", "Marvin J. Tedder for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "CINDY JO BATTEN, Administratrix of the Estate of BILLY GENE BATTEN, Deceased, Plaintiff v. BETTY LEE BATTEN, Defendant\nNo. COA96-418\n(Filed 18 March 1997)\nDescent and Distribution \u00a7 10 (NCI4th)\u2014 inheritance rights\u2014 separation agreement \u2014 divorce\u2014remarriage\nThe trial court committed reversible error by granting plaintiff\u2019s summary judgment motion that pursuant to a separation agreement defendant was not entitled to inherit real property from her deceased husband\u2019s estate where the two had entered into a separation agreement, divorced, and remarried. Under N.C.G.S. \u00a7\u00a7 29-14(a)(2) and (b)(2), when defendant remarried the deceased, the subsequent remarriage negated the terms of the separation agreement.\nAm Jur 2d, Divorce and Separation \u00a7\u00a7 680, 851, 882.\nRemarriage as affecting right to appeal from divorce decree. 29 ALR3d 1167.\nEffect of remarriage of spouses to each other on permanent alimony provisions in final divorce decree. 52 ALR3d 1334.\nEffect of custody and support provisions upon remarriage of spouses to each other. 26 ALR4th 325.\nAppeal by defendant from order entered 20 December 1995 by Judge William C. Gore, Jr. in Columbus County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 8 January 1997.\nDavid S. Tedder for plaintiff-appellee.\nMarvin J. Tedder for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0685-01", "first_page_order": 723, "last_page_order": 726 }