{
  "id": 8521114,
  "name": "SYLVIA E. WINBORNE v. MELVIN D. WINBORNE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Winborne v. Winborne",
  "decision_date": "1981-10-06",
  "docket_number": "No. 816SC209",
  "first_page": "189",
  "last_page": "190",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "54 N.C. App. 189"
    }
  ],
  "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": "210 S.E. 2d 509",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "24 N.C. App. 362",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551165
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/24/0362-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 204,
    "char_count": 2681,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.818,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.910444093458357e-08,
      "percentile": 0.46126492316733525
    },
    "sha256": "63712c5ee40dfa263e4bc226ef0169255adea07b524e78c2340cbf891045e126",
    "simhash": "1:b65e3eee5217414c",
    "word_count": 449
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:12:28.716896+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Vaughn and Arnold concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "SYLVIA E. WINBORNE v. MELVIN D. WINBORNE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WEBB, Judge.\nWe believe we are governed by Hepler v. Burnham, 24 N.C. App. 362, 210 S.E. 2d 509 (1975) in which case the parties entered into a separation agreement which provided:\n\u201cIt is understood and agreed that the parties hereto, prior to separation, resided at 739 Fairfield Street, Burlington, North Carolina, and the party of the first party (sic), wife now resides in and shall be permitted to continue to reside in and at said location unmolested, and party of the second part does hereby lease said premises to party of the first part, free of any rent, for her continued use of said premises as her home during the existence of this agreement.\u201d\nIn Hepler this Court held that by executing the separation agreement, the petitioner had modified and limited his right to partition the property. We believe the agreement in the case sub judice is sufficiently similar to Hepler so that we would have to overrule that case to sustain the position of the appellee. In each case the gravamen of the separation agreement as to the disposition of the entirety property is that the respondent will be allowed to live in the house so long as he or she meets certain conditions. There is no dispute that the respondent has met the conditions in this case.\nIt was error for the court not to dismiss the petition. We reverse and remand for an order consistent with this opinion.\nReversed and remanded.\nJudges Vaughn and Arnold concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WEBB, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Jenkins and Jenkins, by Robert C. Jenkins, for petitioner ap-pellee.",
      "Revelle, Burleson, Lee and Revelle, by L. Frank Burleson, Jr., for respondent appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "SYLVIA E. WINBORNE v. MELVIN D. WINBORNE\nNo. 816SC209\n(Filed 6 October 1981)\nHusband and Wife \u00a7 11; Partition \u00a7 2\u2014 separation agreement preventing partition\nWhere the parties executed a separation agreement which provided: \u201cThe parties own a home as \u2018tenants by the entirety,\u2019 in which husband will continue to live and make payments,\u201d they modified and limited their right to partition the property.\nAppeal by respondent from Llewelyn, Judge. Judgment entered 21 January 1981 in Superior Court, HERTFORD County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 24 September 1981..\nThe petitioner commenced this proceeding for the sale for petition of a house and lot she and the respondent had owned as tenants by the entirety before they were divorced. Prior to the divorce, the parties entered into a separation agreement which provided: \u201cThe parties own a home as \u2018tenants by the entirety,\u2019 in which husband will continue to live and make payments.\u201d The defendant pled this agreement as a bar to the sale for partition.\nThe court granted the petitioner\u2019s motion for summary judgment. Respondent appealed.\nJenkins and Jenkins, by Robert C. Jenkins, for petitioner ap-pellee.\nRevelle, Burleson, Lee and Revelle, by L. Frank Burleson, Jr., for respondent appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0189-01",
  "first_page_order": 217,
  "last_page_order": 218
}