{
  "id": 8521530,
  "name": "MICKI S. MEWBORN LOVE v. VIRGIL MEWBORN, III",
  "name_abbreviation": "Love v. Mewborn",
  "decision_date": "1986-02-18",
  "docket_number": "No. 8515DC1060",
  "first_page": "465",
  "last_page": "468",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "79 N.C. App. 465"
    }
  ],
  "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": "278 S.E. 2d 907",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "52 N.C. App. 380",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        12170331
      ],
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/52/0380-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "252 S.E. 2d 698",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "702"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "296 N.C. 661",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8569934
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "668"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/296/0661-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "317 S.E. 2d 97",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "69 N.C. App. 483",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8526484
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/69/0483-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "245 S.E. 2d 693",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "295 N.C. 390",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8563261
      ],
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/295/0390-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 343,
    "char_count": 6478,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.825,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.769289830027984e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8341982486237615
    },
    "sha256": "38649f47d217a65972247a7941f19034710970da75a2db54cba433a778119f2a",
    "simhash": "1:231940267aa6be42",
    "word_count": 1009
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:35:53.333939+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Webb and Parker concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "MICKI S. MEWBORN LOVE v. VIRGIL MEWBORN, III"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HEDRICK, Chief Judge.\nDefendant contends that the twenty-four hour reconciliation of the parties terminated defendant\u2019s \u201calimony\u201d obligations. It is well settled that a single act of sexual intercourse between a husband and wife constitutes a reconciliation and terminates alimony obligations. Murphy v. Murphy, 295 N.C. 390, 245 S.E. 2d 693 (1978). However, property settlements may be executed before, during or after marriage and are not necessarily terminated by reconciliation. See G.S. 50-20(d); Buffington v. Buffington, 69 N.C. App. 483, 317 S.E. 2d 97 (1984). Thus the central issue on this appeal is whether the trial court erred in determining that the $800.00 per month payments denominated \u201calimony\u201d in the agreement were part of the property settlement between the parties.\nDefendant by his second and third assignments of error contends that the trial court committed reversible error in admitting the parol evidence upon which the court based its finding that the payments were part of the property settlement. He argues that the term \u201calimony\u201d in the separation agreement and property settlement was clear and unambiguous and that therefore the evidence regarding the negotiations was inadmissible parol evidence. We disagree.\nThe fact that payments are denominated \u201calimony\u201d militates against a finding that the payments are part of a property settlement but is \u201cfar from conclusive on the issue.\u201d White v. White, 296 N.C. 661, 668, 252 S.E. 2d 698, 702 (1979). Evidence regarding the situation of the parties at the time of the agreement is admissible to show whether the parties intended the payments to be merely alimony or a part of the property settlement. Id.\nDefendant next argues that plaintiff s exhibit B, a letter from plaintiffs attorney to defendant\u2019s attorney dated 5 March 1980, was erroneously admitted without foundation. This contention is not properly before us. At trial the defendant objected to the admission of plaintiffs exhibit B on the grounds that \u201cany negotiations between the parties prior to culmination of the separation agreement is not admissible; they were simply negotiations and did not become a part of the separation agreement.\u201d Defendant never objected to the foundation laid for plaintiffs exhibit B. Defendant having made a specific objection at trial based upon the parol evidence rule may not argue improper foundations on appeal. State v. Sellars, 52 N.C. App. 380, 278 S.E. 2d 907 (1981); 1 H. Brandis, Brandis on North Carolina Evidence Sec. 27 (2nd ed. 1982).\nBy assigning error to the trial court\u2019s judgment and denial of his motion for directed verdict, defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court\u2019s findings of fact, the sufficiency of the findings of fact to support the conclusions of law and the sufficiency of the conclusions of law to support the judgment.\nThe evidence taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff is sufficient to support the trial court\u2019s finding that the property settlement provisions and the alimony provisions of the separation agreement and property settlement were intended to be mutually dependent. The stipulated testimony of the plaintiff is to this effect. Plaintiffs exhibit B, the letter from plaintiffs attorney to defendant\u2019s attorney dated three months prior to the separation agreement and property settlement, states that \u201cVirgil will pay to Micky the sum of $55,000, all to constitute a property settlement. ... As an alternative to the cash settlement of $55,000, Virgil may pay the sum of $1,000 per month for a period of 8 years. . . .\u201d\nThe trial court\u2019s finding of fact that the property settlement and alimony payments were mutually dependent supports its conclusion that the defendant\u2019s obligation did not terminate upon renewal of sexual relations. See G.S. 50-20(d); Buffington v. Buffington, 69 N.C. App. 483, 317 S.E. 2d 97 (1984). The trial court\u2019s conclusion that defendant\u2019s obligation did not terminate upon renewal of sexual relations supports its judgment ordering defendant to pay the omitted payments. All of defendant\u2019s assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nJudges Webb and Parker concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HEDRICK, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Wishart, Norris, Henninger & Pittman, P.A., by June K. Allison, for plaintiff, appellee.",
      "Vernon, Vernon, Wooten, Brown & Andrews, P.A., by Wiley P. Wooten and T. Randall Sandifer, for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MICKI S. MEWBORN LOVE v. VIRGIL MEWBORN, III\nNo. 8515DC1060\n(Filed 18 February 1986)\n1. Husband and Wife \u00a7 11.1\u2014 separation agreement \u2014 \u201calimony\u201d as part of property settlement\nThe trial court could properly consider parol evidence regarding the situation of the parties at the time of execution of their separation agreement and property settlement to determine whether payments denominated \u201calimony\u201d in the agreement were part of the property settlement between the parties.\n2. Husband and Wife \u00a7 12\u2014 separation agreement \u2014 obligation to pay not terminated upon renewal of sexual relations\nEvidence was sufficient to support the trial court\u2019s finding that property settlement and alimony payments were mutually dependent which in turn supported its conclusion that defendant\u2019s obligation to pay under the parties\u2019 separation agreement and property settlement did not terminate upon renewal of sexual relations.\nAppeal by defendant from Allen (J.B., Jr.), Judge. Judgment entered 1 August 1985 nunc pro tunc 21 May 1985. Heard in the Court of Appeals 12 February 1986.\nPlaintiff and defendant who were husband and wife separated on 14 January 1980. They entered a \u201cseparation agreement and property settlement\u201d on 1 May 1980. As part of the separation agreement and property settlement, the defendant agreed to pay plaintiff $800.00 per month \u201calimony\u201d for a period of ten years. By the terms of the agreement, defendant\u2019s obligation would terminate upon the death or remarriage of plaintiff.\nThe parties admit that a reconciliation occurred in May of 1981 and that sexual relations resumed during the less than twenty-four hour reconciliation period. The parties were divorced in July of 1982 and plaintiff remarried in July of 1983. Following the reconciliation of May 1981, defendant stopped making the $800.00 per month payments to plaintiff. On 27 December 1984, plaintiff commenced this action to recover $800.00 per month from June of 1981 through the time of her remarriage. From a judgment granting plaintiff $20,800 plus interest, defendant appealed.\nWishart, Norris, Henninger & Pittman, P.A., by June K. Allison, for plaintiff, appellee.\nVernon, Vernon, Wooten, Brown & Andrews, P.A., by Wiley P. Wooten and T. Randall Sandifer, for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0465-01",
  "first_page_order": 493,
  "last_page_order": 496
}
