{
  "id": 8524336,
  "name": "BARBARA PORTER WARD v. VIRGIL VAUGHN WARD and EUGENE McKEITHAN",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ward v. Ward",
  "decision_date": "1982-05-18",
  "docket_number": "No. 8113DC943",
  "first_page": "343",
  "last_page": "346",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "57 N.C. App. 343"
    }
  ],
  "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": "61 S.E. 2d 338",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1950,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "232 N.C. 465",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8605809
      ],
      "year": 1950,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/232/0465-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "142 S.E. 2d 643",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1965,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "264 N.C. 602",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8574692
      ],
      "year": 1965,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/264/0602-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "179 S.E. 2d 396",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "398"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "278 N.C. 153",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8559876
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "158"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/278/0153-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 376,
    "char_count": 7610,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.755,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.89950402824256e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3086618177353197
    },
    "sha256": "204bfcc94af049f392896743f2450f1aa074390fcd38ad7b115a4be53f997f21",
    "simhash": "1:ab06d5bf02f6fdd6",
    "word_count": 1305
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:31:38.946391+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Vaughn and Arnold concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "BARBARA PORTER WARD v. VIRGIL VAUGHN WARD and EUGENE McKEITHAN"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MARTIN (Robert M.), Judge.\nPlaintiff contends that the trial court erred in directing the verdicts for defendant Ward. Our Supreme Court in Kelly v. Harvester Co., 278 N.C. 153, 158, 179 S.E. 2d 396, 398 (1971) stated the test for allowing a directed verdict:\nOn a motion by a defendant for a directed verdict in a jury case, the court must consider all the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and may grant the motion only if, as a matter of law, the evidence is insufficient to justify a verdict for the plaintiff. (Citation omitted.)\nConsidering plaintiffs second and third causes of action first, we find that the trial court properly granted defendant\u2019s motions for directed verdict.\nIt is well-settled in North Carolina that during the existence of a tenancy by the entirety, the husband has the absolute and exclusive right to the control, use, possession, rents, income and profits of the land. 2 R. Lee, N.C. Family Law \u00a7 115 (4th ed. 1980). The husband does not have to account to his wife for the rent and income received from the property. Board of Architecture v. Lee, 264 N.C. 602, 142 S.E. 2d 643 (1965). In the case at bar, as a matter of law defendant husband did not have to account to plaintiff for the rents received from the farmland owned as tenants by the entirety during the parties\u2019 marriage. Plaintiff testified as follows: \u201cVirgil told me when we bought the farms that they were for our future. That while we were young we were going to clear the land and have it paid for so that when we got older that would be our future.\u201d Considering this testimony in the light most favorable to plaintiff, it is insufficient to show an express or implied agreement that plaintiff is entitled to the rents received for the jointly owned property during the marriage. The husband, therefore, was legally entitled to those rents. Id. Thus, the trial court\u2019s entry of a directed verdict was proper.\nIn her third cause of action plaintiff sought one-half of the value of the stock in the Combined Insurance Company held in defendant\u2019s name. Plaintiff\u2019s only evidence was that the stock was acquired during the marriage and that they \u201cwent together and bought it.\u201d Considering this evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, as a matter of law the evidence is insufficient to justify a verdict for plaintiff. Kelly v. Harvester Co., supra.\nPlaintiff in her first cause of action sought one-half of personal property acquired during the marriage or one-half of its value of $43,760.00. This property consisted primarily of farm equipment and household goods, and all the property was financed by Southeast PCA where both plaintiff and her husband had signed the notes. Plaintiff testified as follows:\nThe property was financed at the PCA and she and her husband both signed the Notes at the PCA. We both paid the loan and Notes off. The payments made on the farm equipment and household goods in 1978 were $1,103.09 on interest and $11,595.18 on principal. These payments were made on debts, Notes that she and her husband signed \u2014 the debts were used to acquire money \u2014 monies to purchase this personal property. During 1979 she and her husband paid $1,156.30 on interest and $6,567.97 on principal.\nShe paid off half of the money. During 1980 she paid half of $1,130.73 [interest] plus $7,869.90 [principal] to PCA. In addition she paid a total of half of $47,000.00 on the debts used to acquire equipment in 1980. Since her separation in 1978, the defendant has not given her any of that property.\n* * *\nAfter we were separated, he had me go to the PCA and to borrow \u2014sign to borrow, Nine Hundred Dollars to pay off part of the equipment, and I paid half of that. I paid off half of the remaining debts.\nThe Note at the PCA was toward the final purchase price of the farm and the Eight or Nine Thousand Dollars still owing on the equipment in 1980.\nIn Bullman v. Edney, 232 N.C. 465, 61 S.E. 2d 338 (1950), a husband and wife purchased an automobile, each paying a part of the purchase price or promising to pay such a part. The court held that they became tenants in common therein in the proportion which the amount paid, or agreed to be paid, by each bore to the entire purchase price. In this case we cannot say that plaintiff\u2019s evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to justify a verdict finding her to have some interest in the property. The trial court improperly granted defendant\u2019s motion for a directed verdict on this cause of action.\nWe have carefully considered plaintiff\u2019s remaining assignment of error and find it to be totally without merit and overruled.\nThe judgment of the trial court is\nAffirmed in part and reversed in part.\nJudges Vaughn and Arnold concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MARTIN (Robert M.), Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ralph G. Jorgensen for the plaintiff-appellant.",
      "No counsel appeared for defendant-appellee Ward on this appeal."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "BARBARA PORTER WARD v. VIRGIL VAUGHN WARD and EUGENE McKEITHAN\nNo. 8113DC943\n(Filed 18 May 1982)\n1. Husband and Wife \u00a7 15.1\u2014 husband\u2019s right to rents and profits from farmlands\nPlaintiff wife\u2019s testimony that defendant husband told her when they bought farmland that \u201cwhile we were young we were going to clear the land and have it paid for so that when we got older that would be our future\u201d was insufficient to show an express or implied agreement that plaintiff was entitled to share in the rents and profits received for jointly owned property during the marriage, and the husband was not required to account to plaintiff for rents received from farmland owned by the parties as tenants by the entirety during the marriage.\n2. Husband and Wife \u00a7 3.1\u2014 wife not entitled to interest in stock\nPlaintiff wife\u2019s testimony that stock in an insurance company was acquired during her marriage to defendant and that they \u201cwent together and bought it\u201d was insufficient to entitle plaintiff to half of the shares of the stock.\n3. Husband and Wife \u00a7 3.1\u2014 interest of wife in personalty \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nPlaintiff wife\u2019s evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that she was entitled to an interest in farm equipment and household goods purchased by the parties during their marriage where it tended to show that plaintiff wife and defendant husband each paid a part of the purchase price of the farm equipment and household goods.\nAPPEAL by plaintiff from Wood, Judge. Judgment entered 19 May 1981 in District Court, COLUMBUS County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 27 April 1982.\nPlaintiff and defendant Ward were married in 1957, separated on 15 February 1978 and divorced on 24 May 1979. Plaintiff brought this action on 13 November 1980 seeking: (1) a division of personal property acquired during the marriage to defendant Ward pursuant to an implied agreement that the parties would share equally in the profits gained by their individual and combined business efforts as well as by individual and combined assets (first cause of action); (2) one-half of the net rents for 1978, 1979 and 1980 from jointly held farmland and for reimbursement of one-half of the insurance paid by plaintiff for 1980 (second cause of action); (3) a division of shares of stock of Combined Insurance Company (third cause of action); and (4) an accounting of the proceeds of the jointly held property leased to defendant McKeithan for 1978, 1979 and 1980 by defendant Ward (fourth cause of action). The trial court granted defendant\u2019s motions for directed verdict at the conclusion of plaintiff\u2019s evidence on plaintiffs first and third causes of action, and on plaintiffs second cause of action for all rents accruing prior to the date of divorce. From this judgment plaintiff appealed.\nRalph G. Jorgensen for the plaintiff-appellant.\nNo counsel appeared for defendant-appellee Ward on this appeal."
  },
  "file_name": "0343-01",
  "first_page_order": 373,
  "last_page_order": 376
}