{
  "id": 8552485,
  "name": "EULA DOWNING ROETHLINGER v. PAUL W. ROETHLINGER, ANNE C. ROETHLINGER, CHARLES A. ROETHLINGER, JR., RUTH C. ROETHLINGER, HERSHALL R. SUMMERS, AUGUSTA R. SUMMERS, JACK R. HARRELL, KATHRYN R. HARRELL, RICHARD R. ROETHLINGER and MINNIE M. ROETHLINGER",
  "name_abbreviation": "Roethlinger v. Roethlinger",
  "decision_date": "1975-03-19",
  "docket_number": "No. 745SC1053",
  "first_page": "226",
  "last_page": "227",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "25 N.C. App. 226"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 206,
    "char_count": 3254,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.592,
    "sha256": "0c0c8d55f3d37d4a17a9d72e21378fc5666c99bd107e0ab74046a2253bf50ff1",
    "simhash": "1:565c04f684085f4c",
    "word_count": 523
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:30:12.075015+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge Brock concurs."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "EULA DOWNING ROETHLINGER v. PAUL W. ROETHLINGER, ANNE C. ROETHLINGER, CHARLES A. ROETHLINGER, JR., RUTH C. ROETHLINGER, HERSHALL R. SUMMERS, AUGUSTA R. SUMMERS, JACK R. HARRELL, KATHRYN R. HARRELL, RICHARD R. ROETHLINGER and MINNIE M. ROETHLINGER"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "VAUGHN, Judge.\nThe question presented is whether plaintiff Eula Downing Roethlinger, widow of testator, took a fee simple interest under the following will:\n\u201cTo all concerned \u2014\nThat I do bequeath my entire holdings to my beloved wife \u2014 Eula Downing Roethlinger \u2014 & I do not wish any interference from my children \u2014 she may give Augusta Mae what she wishes otherwise do not wish any other interference \u2014 I am not well \u2014 but I am well satisfied as to conditions I do hope Eula will be happy & I do want her to have my home. If she remarries \u2014 it will be divided accordingly \u2014 but otherwise she has everything\u2014\nCharles Albert Roethlinger Sr.\n(Don\u2019t contest this writing-)\u2019\u2019\nThe trial judge concluded that testator\u2019s, intent \u201cwas to convey to his wife, Eula Downing Roethlinger a defeasible fee simple estate to the lands described in the Complaint, and upon the remarriage of his wife, Eula Downing Roethlinger, the lands would go over to his surviving children, the defendants in this action.\u201d\nThe court then decreed that plaintiff \u201c . . . has a defeasible fee simple estate in the land described in the Complaint, and that the defendants [children of testator] have a contingent remainder interest in the same land upon the remarriage of the plaintiff.\u201d\nThe opening part of the will is not ambiguous: \u201cThat I do bequeath my entire holdings to my beloved wife \u2014 Eula Downing Roethlinger \u2014 and I do not wish any interference from my children. ...\u201d No rules of construction need be employed to conclude that this sentence gives his wife all of his property absolutely and without restriction. \u2022\nDoes the following part of the will, \u201cIf she remarries \u2014 it will be divided accordingly\u201d clearly take away that which he had already given unconditionally? We do not think so. The language is ambiguous and does not unmistakably show an intent to divest testator\u2019s wife of the fee first given in the will. The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for entry of judgment in conformity with this opinion.\nReversed and remanded.\nChief Judge Brock concurs.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "VAUGHN, Judge."
      },
      {
        "text": "Judge Martin\ndissenting: I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.",
        "type": "dissent",
        "author": "Judge Martin"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Smith & Spivey by Jerry L. Spivey for plaintiff appellant.",
      "No counsel for defendant appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "EULA DOWNING ROETHLINGER v. PAUL W. ROETHLINGER, ANNE C. ROETHLINGER, CHARLES A. ROETHLINGER, JR., RUTH C. ROETHLINGER, HERSHALL R. SUMMERS, AUGUSTA R. SUMMERS, JACK R. HARRELL, KATHRYN R. HARRELL, RICHARD R. ROETHLINGER and MINNIE M. ROETHLINGER\nNo. 745SC1053\n(Filed 19 March 1975)\nWills \u00a7 34\u2014 fee simple interest given to wife under will \u2014 no contingent remainder interest in children\nStatement in the testator\u2019s will, \u201cThat I do bequeath my entire holdings to my beloved wife \u2014 Eula Downing Roethlinger \u2014 and I do not wish any interference from my children,\u201d gave plaintiff widow all of testator\u2019s property absolutely and without restriction, and his subsequent statement, \u201cIf she remarries \u2014 it will be divided accordingly,\u201d did not give defendant children a contingent remainder interest in the same property upon remarriage of the plaintiff.\nJudge MARTIN dissenting.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Tillery, Judge. Judgment entered 5 September 1974 in Superior Court, New Hanover County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 20 February 1975.\nSmith & Spivey by Jerry L. Spivey for plaintiff appellant.\nNo counsel for defendant appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0226-01",
  "first_page_order": 254,
  "last_page_order": 255
}