{
  "id": 11650799,
  "name": "SHEILA E. NEWLAND, Plaintiff v. ROSS G. NEWLAND, JR., Defendant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Newland v. Newland",
  "decision_date": "1998-05-05",
  "docket_number": "No. COA97-850",
  "first_page": "418",
  "last_page": "421",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "129 N.C. App. 418"
    }
  ],
  "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": "335 S.E.2d 493",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "314 N.C. 663",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4694337,
        4690446,
        4686799,
        4691121,
        4693563
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/314/0663-02",
        "/nc/314/0663-05",
        "/nc/314/0663-01",
        "/nc/314/0663-04",
        "/nc/314/0663-03"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "331 S.E.2d 163",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "166"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "75 N.C. App. 498",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8526221
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "504"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/75/0498-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "436 S.E.2d 843",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "847"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "112 N.C. App. 700",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8523565
      ],
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "706"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/112/0700-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "402 S.E.2d 855",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "858"
        },
        {
          "page": "858"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "102 N.C. App. 514",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8524913
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "518"
        },
        {
          "page": "518-519"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/102/0514-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 50-20",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(d)"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "d"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "230 S.E.2d 541",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "545",
          "parenthetical": "maintaining the parties' separation agreement is void if they reestablish a marital home"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "291 N.C. 386",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8558339
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "391",
          "parenthetical": "maintaining the parties' separation agreement is void if they reestablish a marital home"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/291/0386-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "400 S.E.2d 461",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1991,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "328 N.C. 274",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2537568,
        2545262,
        2542737,
        2540051,
        2539988
      ],
      "year": 1991,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/328/0274-03",
        "/nc/328/0274-04",
        "/nc/328/0274-02",
        "/nc/328/0274-01",
        "/nc/328/0274-05"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "397 S.E.2d 306",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 6,
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "309"
        },
        {
          "page": "309",
          "parenthetical": "emphasis added"
        },
        {
          "page": "405"
        },
        {
          "page": "309",
          "parenthetical": "emphasis added"
        },
        {
          "page": "403"
        },
        {
          "page": "309"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "100 N.C. App. 398",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8526900
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "403"
        },
        {
          "page": "404"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/100/0398-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 379,
    "char_count": 7027,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.761,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.394677645854957e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5155055371954118
    },
    "sha256": "bdd69af469b21c3f348b619a2049ce2c3caea0762ac2e61c94afd272cb50b537",
    "simhash": "1:8a28d57fb07a5f42",
    "word_count": 1062
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:14:06.814789+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges LEWIS and MARTIN, John C., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "SHEILA E. NEWLAND, Plaintiff v. ROSS G. NEWLAND, JR., Defendant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MARTIN, Mark D., Judge.\nPlaintiff appeals from the trial court\u2019s judgment denying plaintiff\u2019s claim to invalidate a separation and property settlement agreement and denying plaintiff\u2019s claims for post-separation support, alimony, attorney fees, and equitable distribution.\nPlaintiff Sheila E. Newland and defendant Ross G. Newland, Jr., were married on 19 February 1972. On 11 December 1995 defendant presented to plaintiff a separation and property settlement agreement which the parties executed on 12 December 1995. On 13 December 1995 the parties signed an amendment to the separation and property settlement agreement. After plaintiff requested additional time to find alternative housing, the parties continued to reside in the marital residence at 10821 Redgrave Lane, Charlotte, North Carolina until 13 January 1996 when plaintiff moved.\nDuring the thirty-one days that both parties continued to reside in the marital home after they signed the separation and property settlement agreement, neither party held themselves out as husband and wife. Moreover, plaintiff and defendant communicated to several people that they had executed a separation and property settlement agreement and admitted there were no attempts at reconciliation. Additionally, plaintiff began packing her belongings.\nOn 13 June 1996 plaintiff filed the instant action claiming the separation and property settlement agreement was null and void. In addition, plaintiff maintained she was entitled to recover post-separation support, alimony, attorney fees, and equitable distribution. In a judgment filed on 25 February 1997, the trial court denied plaintiff\u2019s claims to invalidate the separation and property settlement agreement and denied plaintiff\u2019s claims for post-separation support, alimony, attorney fees, and equitable distribution.\nOn appeal, plaintiff essentially contends the trial court erred by finding the separation and property settlement agreement valid. Specifically, plaintiff maintains the parties\u2019 failure to separate until thirty-one days after the execution of the separation and property settlement agreement rendered the post-separation support and alimony provisions null and void. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.\nGenerally, separation agreements provide \u201csupport for the [dependent spouse] and custody and support for minor children,\u201d Stegall v. Stegall, 100 N.C. App. 398, 403, 397 S.E.2d 306, 309 (1990), disc. review denied, 328 N.C. 274, 400 S.E.2d 461 (1991), 2 R. Lee, North Carolina Family Law \u00a7 187, at 459-460 (4th ed. 1980), and \u201care valid ... if executed after the parties are separated or when separation is imminent.\u201d Stegall, 100 N.C. App. at 404, 397 S.E.2d at 309 (emphasis added). Additionally, \u201cseparation agreements entered into while the parties are still living together but planning to separate may ... be valid.\u201d Id. at 405, 397 S.E.2d at 309 (emphasis added); see 2 R. Lee, North Carolina Family Law \u00a7 188, at 481 (4th Ed. Supp. 1997) However, \u201creconciliation of the parties voids the executory provisions of a separation agreement.\u201d Id. at 403, 397 S.E.2d at 309. See In re Estate of Adamee, 291 N.C. 386, 391, 230 S.E.2d 541, 545 (1976) (maintaining the parties\u2019 separation agreement is void if they reestablish a marital home).\nIn contrast, property settlements involve the distribution of marital property between the parties and may be entered into at any time, before, during or after marriage. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 50-20(d) (1995); Lee, supra, \u00a7 187, at 460. Resumption of marital relations after the execution of a property settlement agreement may rescind the execu-tory provisions of a property settlement if the agreement was \u201cnegotiated in \u2018reciprocal consideration\u2019 for the separation agreement.\u201d Morrison v. Morrison, 102 N.C. App. 514, 518, 402 S.E.2d 855, 858 (1991). \u201cThis is so whether the property settlement and the separation agreement are contained in a single document or separate documents.\u201d Id.\nThe trial court\u2019s findings of fact in a bench trial generally \u201chave the weight of a jury verdict and are conclusive on appeal if supported by competent evidencef,] . . . even though the evidence might also sustain findings to the contrary.\u201d Foster v. Foster Farms, Inc., 112 N.C. App. 700, 706, 436 S.E.2d 843, 847 (1993).\nIn the present case, the trial court\u2019s findings of fact are supported by competent evidence and they, in turn, support the conclusions of law. See Camp v. Camp, 75 N.C. App. 498, 504, 331 S.E.2d 163, 166, disc. review denied, 314 N.C. 663, 335 S.E.2d 493 (1985). Specifically, the trial court found that \u201cthe parties agreed in the contract to separate \u2018substantially contemporaneously\u2019 with execution of the document.\u201d Moreover, the trial court determined \u201c [i]t was the parties\u2019 intent at execution of the Contract to separate immediately\u201d but \u201c[w]hen Mrs. Newland requested additional time to locate an alternative residence, Mr. Newland agreed.\u201d Based on these findings, the trial court properly concluded the parties \u201cdid not reconcile following the execution of the contracts\u201d and determined the separation agreement was valid.\nBecause the parties did not resume marital relations and the separation agreement provisions are therefore valid under the present facts, we do not consider whether the property settlement provisions of the contract, executed pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 50-20 (d), were affected by the parties\u2019 conduct. See Morrison, 102 N.C. App. at 518-519, 402 S.E.2d at 858. As a result, the parties\u2019 waiver of post-separation support and alimony is valid. Accordingly, plaintiff\u2019s contentions are without merit.\nAffirmed.\nJudges LEWIS and MARTIN, John C., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MARTIN, Mark D., Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Justice, Eve & Edwards, P.A., by David L. Edwards for plaintiff-appellant.",
      "Edward P. Hausle, P.A., by Edward P. Hausle, for defendant-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "SHEILA E. NEWLAND, Plaintiff v. ROSS G. NEWLAND, JR., Defendant\nNo. COA97-850\n(Filed 5 May 1998)\nDivorce and Separation \u00a7 35 (NCI4th)\u2014 separation agreement \u2014 living in marital residence for additional time \u2014 no reconciliation \u2014 agreement valid\nA separation agreement in which the parties waived post-separation support and alimony was not invalid because the parties both continued to reside in the marital residence for thirty-one days after the separation agreement was executed where the parties agreed to separate \u201csubstantially contemporaneously\u201d with the execution of the agreement; the wife requested additional time to find alternative housing, and the husband agreed; after execution of the agreement, the parties did not hold themselves out as husband and wife, they communicated to several people that they had executed a separation and property settlement agreement, and the wife began packing her belongings; and the parties did not attempt reconciliation or resume marital relations after execution of the agreement.\nAppeal by plaintiff from judgment signed 20 February 1997 by Judge David S. Cayer in Mecklenburg County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 26 February 1998.\nJustice, Eve & Edwards, P.A., by David L. Edwards for plaintiff-appellant.\nEdward P. Hausle, P.A., by Edward P. Hausle, for defendant-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0418-01",
  "first_page_order": 458,
  "last_page_order": 461
}