{
  "id": 8554698,
  "name": "WILLIAM J. HOUCK, Administrator, C.T.A., under the Will of EMMA J. STEPHENS; JOE R. STEPHENS; and THEODORE STEPHENS, Petitioners v. PATRICK STEPHENS; WILLIAM E. STEPHENS; THOMAS STEPHENS; KATHERINE S. BOWMAN and husband, ODELL BOWMAN; and MELVIN HUDSON, Respondents",
  "name_abbreviation": "Houck v. Stephens",
  "decision_date": "1975-07-16",
  "docket_number": "No. 7525SC266",
  "first_page": "608",
  "last_page": "610",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "26 N.C. App. 608"
    }
  ],
  "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": "84 S.E. 860",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "year": 1915,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "168 N.C. 561",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8661443
      ],
      "year": 1915,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/168/0561-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 332,
    "char_count": 5340,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.59,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20599675888439828
    },
    "sha256": "531db5687b6b79e7f680f356ae7b1e74373131eaf0ffd86994d567aa6251bbf4",
    "simhash": "1:2267cb7f7490047c",
    "word_count": 897
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:59:13.418266+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Clark and Arnold concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "WILLIAM J. HOUCK, Administrator, C.T.A., under the Will of EMMA J. STEPHENS; JOE R. STEPHENS; and THEODORE STEPHENS, Petitioners v. PATRICK STEPHENS; WILLIAM E. STEPHENS; THOMAS STEPHENS; KATHERINE S. BOWMAN and husband, ODELL BOWMAN; and MELVIN HUDSON, Respondents"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MARTIN, Judge.\nAppellant Patrick Stephens is dissatisfied with the trial judge\u2019s construction of the deed. He first takes the position that the language \u201cto Emer J. Stephens and her children after her\u201d conveys to Emma J. Stephens a life estate with a contingent remainder to her children so that only those children who can answer the roll upon the death of Emma Stephens acquire any interest in the lands. This is so, he argues, because the words \u201cafter her\u201d limit the remainder interest to those surviving the life tenant.\nAppellant\u2019s contention relies too heavily on the words \u201cafter her.\u201d They are the only words which manifest an intent to convey a life estate to Emma J. Stephens with a remainder to her children. However, appellant would have them perform the additional task of imposing a requirement of survivorship upon the remaindermen. The most that can be said in favor of appellant\u2019s position is that from the language of the deed it is unclear whether the grantor intended to convey a vested or contingent remainder to the children of Emma J. Stephens. This being so, the trial judge properly construed the deed as conveying a vested remainder to the children.\n\u201cIn 24 A. and E. Enc., 394, the author says: \u2018Where a remainder is given to a class, as, for instance, the children of a designated person, it will be held a vested remainder unless the terms of the instrument creating it clearly show that the ascertainment of the individuals composing the class is to be postponed until the determination of the preceding estate. But such a remainder, though vested, will open to let in members of the class who may be born during the continuance of the preceding estate.\u2019 \u201d Powell v. Powell, 168 N.C. 561, 84 S.E. 860 (1915).\nFailing in his contention that the remainder interest was contingent, appellant resourcefully advances two other interpretations of the deed. Neither contains merit.\nJudge Ervin properly construed the deed as conveying a life estate to Emma J. Stephens with a vested remainder in her children Fred Stephens, Rose Stephens, Ann S. Hudson, Patrick Stephens, and Theodore Stephens.\nAffirmed.\nJudges Clark and Arnold concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MARTIN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. Carroll Abernethy, Jr., for petitioner appellee William J. Houck.",
      "Richard A. Williams, for respondent appellant Patrick Stephens.",
      "Steve A. Austin, for respondent appellee Thomas Stephens."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "WILLIAM J. HOUCK, Administrator, C.T.A., under the Will of EMMA J. STEPHENS; JOE R. STEPHENS; and THEODORE STEPHENS, Petitioners v. PATRICK STEPHENS; WILLIAM E. STEPHENS; THOMAS STEPHENS; KATHERINE S. BOWMAN and husband, ODELL BOWMAN; and MELVIN HUDSON, Respondents\nNo. 7525SC266\n(Filed 16 July 1975)\nDeeds \u00a7 13\u2014 conveyance to testatrix and children after her \u2014 vested remainder\nA deed conveying land to testatrix \u201cand her children after her\u201d created a vested remainder in the children and did not impose a requirement of survivorship upon the remaindermen.\nAppeal by respondent Patrick Stephens from Ervin, Judge. Judgment entered 18 November 1974 in Superior Court, Catawba County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 29 May 1975.\nPetitioners instituted this action under the provisions of the Declaratory Judgment Act (G.S. 1-253 et seq.) to construe a deed.\nThe underlying facts are not in dispute. Emma J. Stephens died on 2 October 1970 leaving a will which devised all of her real property of which she was seized at the time of death to Patrick Stephens, Theodore Stephens, Joe R. Stephens, and William E. Stephens. Each was to receive a one-fourth interest. However, the administrator C.T.A. was in doubt as to the nature and extent of her interest in certain real property due to a deed dated 2 February 1905 from William Burns and wife, Huida Burns, to \u201cEmer (sic) J. Stephens and her children after her.\u201d\nIn the 2 February 1905 deed some 101.5 acres of land was conveyed by use of a form deed to Emma J. Stephens, and where-ever the phrase \u201cheirs and assigns\u201d appeared it was struck out and the phrase \u201cand her children after her\u201d was inserted.\nThe trial court found, inter alia:\n\u201c3. That the husband of Emma J. Stephens, Jesse E. Stephens, predeceased her.\n4. That the children of Emma J. Stephens are as follows:\n(a) Fred Stephens, born June 13, 1894, who died on the 18th day of August, 1934, survived by his wife Trilby S. Stephens, who died in June 1970, and a son, William E. Stephens, a daughter Katherine S. Bowman, and a son, Thomas Stephens.\n(b) Rose Stephens, born August 31, 1900 who died on November 8, 1946, survived by her son, Joe R. Stephens. The said Rose Stephens was never married.\n(c) Ann S. Hudson, born March 18, 1898, who died the 11th day of January, 1963, intestate, survived by her husband Melvin L. Hudson, and her mother Emma J. Stephens.\n(d) Barry Stephens, born May 22, 1903, who died in childhood on/or about September 4, 1903.\n(e) Patrick Stephens, born January 3, 1891.\n(f) Theodore Stephens, born October 27, 1904.\u201d\nThe trial court adjudged that the 2 February 1905 deed by William Burns and wife, Huida Burns, to Emma (Emer) J. Stephens and her children after her conveyed a life estate in the lands to Emma J. Stephens with a vested remainder as tenants in common to Fred Stephens, Rose Stephens, Ann S. Hudson, Patrick Stephens, and Theodore Stephens.\nRespondent Patrick Stephens objected and excepted to this judgment and gave notice of appeal.\nJ. Carroll Abernethy, Jr., for petitioner appellee William J. Houck.\nRichard A. Williams, for respondent appellant Patrick Stephens.\nSteve A. Austin, for respondent appellee Thomas Stephens."
  },
  "file_name": "0608-01",
  "first_page_order": 636,
  "last_page_order": 638
}
