{
  "id": 8553712,
  "name": "ROBERT M. THOMPSON v. JEWELL R. THOMPSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "Thompson v. Thompson",
  "decision_date": "1975-07-02",
  "docket_number": "No. 7523DC174",
  "first_page": "496",
  "last_page": "498",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "26 N.C. App. 496"
    }
  ],
  "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": 341,
    "char_count": 5372,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.576,
    "sha256": "cea56df9836d48f3c88cae0ee46e50418d6d5bbb0ace989a866adbba1e6ecca8",
    "simhash": "1:a00437e75fd0fa83",
    "word_count": 893
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:59:13.418266+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Morris and Hedrick concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "ROBERT M. THOMPSON v. JEWELL R. THOMPSON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BROCK, Chief Judge.\nPlaintiff presents four arguments for our consideration. His first argument challenges (1) the failure of the trial judge to strike defendant\u2019s allegations that she repaid a portion of the bank loan; (2) the judge\u2019s treating .the defendant\u2019s answer as a counterclaim; and (8) the admission of evidence concerning defendant\u2019s repayment of the loan. The gist of plaintiff\u2019s argument is that these matters concerning.'defendant\u2019s repayment of the loan constitute a \u201cnew cause of action\u201d having \u201cno substantial relation to the controversy between the parties.\u201d This argument is feckless. The cases cited by plaintiff as authority for his argument were written long before the adoption of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure and do not support, his contentions. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 18(b) provides:\n\u201cPermissive counterclaim. \u2014 A pleading may state as a counterclaim any claim against an opposing party not arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party\u2019s claim.\u201d\nTo further bolster his first argument, plaintiff asserts that he was \u201cunfairly surprised\u201d when the court allowed the defendant to inject her counterclaim into the case \u201cin the middle of the trial.\u201d The record shows that the defendant\u2019s motion to treat her answer as a counterclaim was granted at the pretrial conference. Plaintiff had sufficient time to prepare a defense. In our opinion plaintiff\u2019s argument is wholly without merit.\nPlaintiff\u2019s remaining arguments are directed to the instructions given by the trial judge to the jury. We have reviewed these instructions and find them to be adequate and fair. In our opinion plaintiff had a fair trial free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Morris and Hedrick concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BROCK, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Edmund I. Adams, for the plaintiff-appellant.",
      "Worth B. Folger and Dan R. Murray, for .the defendant-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ROBERT M. THOMPSON v. JEWELL R. THOMPSON\nNo. 7523DC174\n(Filed 2 July 1975)\nPleadings \u00a7 11; Rules of Civil Procedure \u00a7 13\u2014 treating answer as counterclaim.\nIn an action in which plaintiff husband alleged that defendant wife fraudulently induced him to convey real property owned .by him to plaintiff and defendants as tenants by the entirety wherein defendant alleged that plaintiff conveyed the property to himself and her so it could be used as collateral for a loan to remodel their house and that she repaid two-thirds of the loan from her own funds, the trial court did not err in allowing defendant\u2019s motion at pretrial conference to try the case on the theory that her answer stated a counterclaim for the amount she had expended from her own funds to repay the loan. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 13(b).\nAppeal by plaintiff from Osborne, Judge. Judgment \u00e9nt\u00e9red 6 December 1974 in District Court, Alleghany County. Argued in the Court of Appeals 27 May 1975.\nPlaintiff is the husband of def\u00e9ndant. The parties, are now separated. Plaintiff commenced this action on 16 August 1974, alleging in his. complaint that defendant, fraudulently induced him to convey real property owned by him to plaintiff and def\u00e9ndant as'.tenants. by the entirety. Defendant denied These allegations and answered that plaintiff conveyed the property to himself and her so that it could be used as collateral for a loan. The loan, for remodeling their house, was in the amount of -$12,000.00, $8,000.00 of which defendant repaid from her own funds. At the pretrial conference defendant moved to try the case on the theory that her answer stated a counterclaim for the amount she had expended from her own funds to repay the loan, and her motion was granted.\nThe events surrounding the conveyance of the property occurred in 1966. Plaintiff was living in Alaska, where he worked for the United States Air Force. Defendant lived in Sparta. Plaintiff testified that defendant sent him a blank deed and asked him to sign it. She needed this done because \u201cshe could not secure the loan the way the original deed was written,\u201d and \u201cit was necessary for (plaintiff) to sign another deed so she could get the money to complete the building.\u201d Plaintiff testified that \u201c[n]othing at all was said about her name being put on the new deed, and I did not have any such understanding at the time I signed it.\u201d Plaintiff first found out that defendant had recorded the deed with plaintiff and herself as grantees in October, 1973.\n' D\u00e9fendant testified that she did not send the deed' \u201cin blank\u201d to plaintiff. An attorney for Watauga Savings and Loan had prepared the deed when it was mailed. Defendant had written to plaintiff, telling him that in order to get the loan he would have to convey the property to himself and her as tenants by the entirety. She testified that plaintiff wrote back that he was \u201cperfectly agreeable\u201d and \u201csaid that it was all right with him that the property was ours.\u201d Defendant worked while plaintiff was in Alaska and repaid over $8,000.00 of the loan. She testified that she \u201cpaid the greater part because I didn\u2019t depend on him for any payments. I never knew if he would send me any money or not.\u201d Plaintiff returned to Sparta in 1967.\nThe jury found that plaintiff executed the deed with the intention of creating an estate by the entirety between himself and defendant and that he did not act through mistake, inad-vertance, or misrepresentation. Judgment was .entered for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed.\nEdmund I. Adams, for the plaintiff-appellant.\nWorth B. Folger and Dan R. Murray, for .the defendant-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0496-01",
  "first_page_order": 524,
  "last_page_order": 526
}
