{
  "id": 11648523,
  "name": "LESLIE WOODY LOCKLEAR, Collector of the Estate of RONALD LOCKLEAR, Plaintiff v. MARGIE HUNT NIXON, Defendant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Locklear v. Nixon",
  "decision_date": "1998-03-17",
  "docket_number": "No. COA97-329",
  "first_page": "105",
  "last_page": "107",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "129 N.C. App. 105"
    }
  ],
  "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": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1-82",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "year": 1996,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "184 S.E.2d 378",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1971,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "379",
          "parenthetical": "emphasis added"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "12 N.C. App. 657",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8552100
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/12/0657-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 329,
    "char_count": 6099,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.771,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7498850319072656
    },
    "sha256": "c12044b5d07ecbec7c56427e02447e17e293d534c9d3565c5071a158eb3af543",
    "simhash": "1:ce1c8b95543f545b",
    "word_count": 1010
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:14:06.814789+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges EAGLES and WALKER concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "LESLIE WOODY LOCKLEAR, Collector of the Estate of RONALD LOCKLEAR, Plaintiff v. MARGIE HUNT NIXON, Defendant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WYNN, Judge.\nUnder the venue provision of Chapter 28A, \u201call proceedings relating to the administration of the estate of a decedent\u201d must be brought in the county where the decedent was domiciled at death. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 28A-3-1 (1996). In this case, Ronald Locklear died after being thrown from a vehicle driven by Margie Hunt Nixon. The collector of his estate, Leslie Locklear (his wife) brought a wrongful death action against Ms. Nixon in Guilford County \u2014 the county in which the collector resided. However, under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 28A-3-1, the trial court transferred the action to Buncombe County \u2014 the domicile of the decedent and where his estate was being administered.\nRelying on N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 28A-18-2 and our decision in In re Estate of Below, 12 N.C. App. 657, 184 S.E.2d 378 (1971), we conclude that a wrongful death action is not a \u201cproceeding relating to the administration of the estate of decedent\u201d as contemplated by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 28A-3-1 and thus, the trial court erred in transferring this case from Guilford to Buncombe County.\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 28A-3-1 provides, in pertinent part, that \u201cvenue for the probate of a will and for all proceedings relating to the administration of the estate of a decedent shall be . . . [i]n the county in this State where the decedent had his domicile at the time of his death.\u201d The plaintiff-collector argues that the decedent\u2019s domicile, Buncombe County, is not the proper venue for this wrongful death action because it is not a \u201c[proceeding] relating to the administration\u201d of her husband\u2019s estate. Instead, she maintains that venue for this action is determined by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1-82, which allows her to bring this action in Guilford County \u2014 the county of her residence.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 28A-18-2 provides the relevant statutory guidance for our review of plaintiff\u2019s argument. That statute, which is entitled \u201cDeath by wrongful act of another; recovery not assets,\u201d provides in pertinent part that\n[t]he amount recovered in [a wrongful death] action is not liable to be applied as assets, in the payment of debts or legacies. except as to burial expenses of the deceased, and reasonable hospital and medical expenses not exceeding one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500) incident to the injury resulting in death[.].\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 28A-2 (1984) (emphasis added).\nAlso significant to our review is our holding in In re Estate of Below, supra. In that case, we considered whether money received by an administrator of a decedent\u2019s estate in settlement of a wrongful death claim was an asset of the decedent\u2019s estate thereby requiring the administrator, under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-307(a)(2), to pay costs to the clerk of court. The appellant in In re Below argued that \u201cwhile the recovery [she sought] [was] not an asset of the estate for the purposes of paying debts or legacies, it [was] an asset of the estate for other purposes, including that of assessing costs under G.S. \u00a7 7A-307(a)(2).\u201d Id. Finding no merit in this argument, we held that \u201c[a] cause of action for wrongful death, being conferred by statute at death, could never have belonged to the deceased,\u201d and that therefore, \u201crecovery resulting from such cause of action [was] not an asset of the deceased\u2019s estate\u201d although it may have been treated as such for other purposes. Id.\nMs. Nixon argues in this appeal that In re Below does not control the outcome of this case because in that case the issue did not concern venue, but rather, as we have already stated, whether an administrator\u2019s recovery in a wrongful death suit was subject to the assessment of costs under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-307(a)(2). This argument is unpersuasive since In re Below specifically determined that\nProceeds recovered under the wrongful death statute are not part of a decedent\u2019s estate, and in dealing with these funds neither the clerk nor the estate\u2019s personal representative is \u2018administering the estate of a decedent.\u2019\nId. at 658, 184 S.E.2d at 379 (emphasis added).\nGiven our legislature\u2019s declaration in N.C.G.S. \u00a7 28A-18-2 and our holding in In re Below, we conclude that plaintiff-collector\u2019s wrongful death suit against Ms. Nixon is not a \u201c[proceeding] relating to the administration of the estate of a decedent. . rather, this wrongful death action is simply a civil action to recover damages for the death of a decedent caused by the alleged wrongful acts of defendant. Accordingly, we hold that the venue in this case is not controlled by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 28A-3-1.\nExcept in cases in which venue is governed by some other specific statute, N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1-82 provides that \u201can action must be tried in the county in which the plaintiffs or defendants, or any of them, reside at its commencement . . .\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1-82 (1996). Because the plaintiff-collector in this case resided in Guilford County, N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1-82 permitted her to bring this wrongful death action in that county. For this reason, the order of the trial court granting Ms. Nixon\u2019s motion to change the venue from Guilford County to Buncombe County is hereby,\nReversed.\nJudges EAGLES and WALKER concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WYNN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Baker & Boyan, P.L.L.C., by Walter W Baker, Jr., and Jeffrey L. Mabe, attorneys for plaintiff-appellant.",
      "Teague, Rotenstreich & Stanaland, by Kenneth B. Rotenstreich, and Ian J. Drake, attorneys for defendant-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "LESLIE WOODY LOCKLEAR, Collector of the Estate of RONALD LOCKLEAR, Plaintiff v. MARGIE HUNT NIXON, Defendant\nNo. COA97-329\n(Filed 17 March 1998)\nVenue \u00a7 13 (NCI4th)\u2014 wrongful death action \u2014 county of collector\u2019s residence\nA wrongful death action is not a \u201cproceeding relating to the administration of the estate of a decedent\u201d that must be brought in the county of decedent\u2019s domicile pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 28A-3-1; therefore, the collector of decedent\u2019s estate could properly bring the wrongful death action in the county in which she resided, and the trial court erred by transferring the action to the county of decedent\u2019s domicile. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1-82.\nAppeal by plaintiff from order entered 15 January 1997 by Judge Thomas W. Ross in Guilford County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 6 January 1998.\nBaker & Boyan, P.L.L.C., by Walter W Baker, Jr., and Jeffrey L. Mabe, attorneys for plaintiff-appellant.\nTeague, Rotenstreich & Stanaland, by Kenneth B. Rotenstreich, and Ian J. Drake, attorneys for defendant-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0105-01",
  "first_page_order": 145,
  "last_page_order": 147
}