{ "id": 8568319, "name": "DOROTHY B. HAMILTON v. BUFORD L. HAMILTON, JR.", "name_abbreviation": "Hamilton v. Hamilton", "decision_date": "1979-02-05", "docket_number": "No. 99", "first_page": "574", "last_page": "578", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "296 N.C. 574" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "36 N.C. App. 755", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8555609 ], "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "Mitchell, J., concurred in by Brock, C.J. and Hedrick, J." } ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/36/0755-01" ] }, { "cite": "189 S.E. 114", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1937, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "115" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "211 N.C. 112", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8624554 ], "year": 1937, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "113" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/211/0112-01" ] }, { "cite": "108 S.E. 2d 889", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1959, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "891" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "250 N.C. 575", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625159 ], "year": 1959, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/250/0575-01" ] }, { "cite": "181 S.E. 2d 588", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "279 N.C. 132", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565922 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/279/0132-01" ] }, { "cite": "108 S.E. 439", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1921, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "441" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "182 N.C. 98", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8655383 ], "year": 1921, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "103" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/182/0098-01" ] }, { "cite": "154 S.E. 2d 71", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "270 N.C. 253", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8566989 ], "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/270/0253-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 516, "char_count": 8449, "ocr_confidence": 0.849, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.808065850457821e-07, "percentile": 0.9513778602536287 }, "sha256": "35ce4f125043f633146b2bc208a9fe18ae4230e8d40ce57063c7f5296615a9d6", "simhash": "1:143e5000733ba3ec", "word_count": 1410 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:17:53.962359+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Justice BROCK did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case." ], "parties": [ "DOROTHY B. HAMILTON v. BUFORD L. HAMILTON, JR." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "COPELAND, Justice.\nThe only assignment of error properly before this Court is whether the absolute divorce granted to defendant bars plaintiff\u2019s right to alimony in this case. Because we find that it does not, the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.\nThe defendant correctly points out that a dependent spouse\u2019s right to alimony is controlled by G.S. 50-16.2. He argues that this plaintiff is denied that right because at the time of the award, she was not a \u201cdependent spouse\u201d as defined in G.S. 50-16.1(3) because she was not a spouse. Furthermore, the defendant claims alimony in this situation is forbidden by G.S. 50-ll(a), which states that, subject to certain exceptions, \u201c[a]fter a judgment of divorce from the bonds of matrimony, all rights arising out of the marriage shall cease and determine.\u201d See Mitchell v. Mitchell, 270 N.C. 253, 154 S.E. 2d 71 (1967).\nThe Legislature has recognized and dealt with this situation should it arise in the future through its recent addition to G.S. 50-6. That provision stipulates that \u201cno final judgment of divorce shall be rendered under this section [on the basis of separation of one year] until the court determines that there are no claims for support or alimony between the parties or that all such claims have been fully and finally adjudicated.\u201d Notwithstanding the fact that the new proviso does not apply to this case, we hold that the defendant is estopped from asserting the divorce as a bar to plaintiff\u2019s alimony rights under these circumstances.\nBefore defendant obtained the divorce, the trial judge was informed by both parties that their dispute over custody, support and alimony had been settled although the consent order had not yet been drawn up. The same judge then granted the divorce, unquestionably on the assumption that a formal agreement would be reached. \u201cIt is an equitable principle, very generally recognized, that in a given transaction a man may not assume and maintain inconsistent positions to the prejudice of another\u2019s rights. And the principle so stated is usually allowed to prevail either in court proceedings or in transactions between individuals.\u201d Bizzell v. Auto Tire and Equipment Co., 182 N.C. 98, 103, 108 S.E. 439, 441 (1921).\nWe do not mean to imply that the defendant intentionally or fraudulently misled the plaintiff or the trial court by his assertion that the parties had settled the matters in question. However, neither bad faith, fraud nor intent to deceive is necessary before the doctrine of equitable estoppel can be applied. Watkins v. Central Motor Lines, Inc., 279 N.C. 132, 181 S.E. 2d 588 (1971).\n\u201c[A] party may be estopped to deny representations made when he had no knowledge of their falsity, or which he made without any intent to deceive the party now setting up the estoppel. . . . [Tjhe fraud consists in the inconsistent position subsequently taken, rather than in the original conduct. It the subsequent inconsistent position, and not the original conduct that operates to the injury of the other party.\u201d H. McClintock, Equity \u00a7 31 (2d ed. 1948).\nIn a somewhat analagous situation, we have invoked this doctrine to estop a defendant from pleading the statute of limitations as a bar to the plaintiffs\u2019 action. In Nowell v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 250 N.C. 575, 108 S.E. 2d 889 (1959), the parties had been negotiating over a period of time concerning the defendant\u2019s liability for the defective construction of a building. The defendant had previously admitted fault and had assured the plaintiffs that the necessary repairs would be made. Based on this conduct, the plaintiffs delayed bringing suit for more than three years after the cause of action had accrued. In upholding judgment for the plaintiffs, this Court stated:\n\u201cThe lapse of time, when properly pleaded, is a technical legal defense. Nevertheless, equity will deny the right to assert that defense when delay has been induced by acts, representations, or conduct, the repudiation of which would amount to a breach of good faith. \u2018The doctrine of equitable estoppel is based on an application of the golden rule to the everyday affairs of men. It requires that one should do unto others as, in equity and good conscience, he would have them do unto him, if their positions were reversed. ... Its compulsion is one of fair play.\u2019 \u201d Id. at 579, 108 S.E. 2d at 891 (quoting McNeely v. Walters, 211 N.C. 112, 113, 189 S.E. 114, 115 (1937)). See also Watkins v. Central Motor Lines, Inc., supra.\nIn neither the Nowell case nor this one were the defendants under a legal duty to actually enter into a binding settlement. Yet justice dictates that they not be allowed to preclude a judgment on the merits because of a technical defense obtained through their innocent yet misleading representations and conduct. This assignment of error is overruled, and the proposed amendment to defendant\u2019s answer is stricken.\nThe above issue is the only one raised before the Court of Appeals. The defendant now attempts to make another argument, regarding an entirely different matter, to this Court. This he cannot do. Rule 16(a) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure stipulates that in a review by this Court of a decision of the Court of Appeals, a party can raise only those questions that were properly presented to the appellate court below.\nFor the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Court of Appeals is\nAffirmed.\nJustice BROCK did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.", "type": "majority", "author": "COPELAND, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Pope and McMillan by Constantine H. Kutteh II for the plaintiff.", "Sowers, Avery & Crosswhite by William E. Crosswhite and McElwee, Hall & McElwee by John E. Hall for the defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "DOROTHY B. HAMILTON v. BUFORD L. HAMILTON, JR.\nNo. 99\n(Filed 5 February 1979)\n1. Divorce and Alimony \u00a7 17.2; Estoppel \u00a7 5\u2014 estoppel to assert divorce as bar to alimony\nDefendant was estopped from asserting an absolute divorce as a bar to plaintiff\u2019s alimony rights where the trial judge was informed by both parties \u25a0 before defendant obtained the divorce that their dispute as to child custody, child support and alimony had been settled although the consent order had not yet been drawn up, the same judge then granted defendant a divorce on the assumption that a formal agreement would be reached, and the parties subsequently failed to sign a consent order.\n2. Appeal and Error \u00a7 2\u2014 scope of review \u2014questions presented to Court of Appeals\nIn a review by the Supreme Court of a decision of the Court of Appeals, a party can raise only those questions which were properly presented to the Court of Appeals. App. R. 16(a).\nJustice Brock did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.\nON petition for discretionary review of the decision of the Court of Appeals, 36 N.C. App. 755, 245 S.E. 2d-399 (1978) (Mitchell, J., concurred in by Brock, C.J. and Hedrick, J.), which affirmed the judgment of Cornelius, D.J., entered in the 22 March 1977 Session of IREDELL County District Court.\nOn 10 June 1976 the plaintiff-wife instituted an action for alimony without divorce and for custody and support of the children born to the parties\u2019 marriage. The defendant-husband counterclaimed for an absolute divorce based on separation for over one year. He also asked for custody of the children.\nThe trial was originally scheduled for 29 September 1976. On that date the attorneys for both plaintiff and defendant met with the judge in chambers and stated that the parties had agreed to a settlement of their differences. The resolution was held open pending the execution of a consent order, and on 26 October 1976 the defendant was granted an absolute divorce on his counterclaim.\nSubsequently, the parties failed to sign the consent order drawn up by plaintiff\u2019s attorney. On 25 January 1977 trial was held concerning custody, support and alimony. At the close of all the evidence, defendant made a motion to amend his answer, pleading the absolute divorce previously granted him as a bar to plaintiff\u2019s right to alimony.\nOn 22 March 1977 the trial judge issued his order. After making findings of fact and conclusions of law, he awarded the plaintiff custody of the children, child support in the amount of $45.00 per week for each child, alimony in the amount of $50.00 per week and reasonable attorney\u2019s fees. The defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the order, and this Court granted defendant\u2019s petition for discretionary review.\nPope and McMillan by Constantine H. Kutteh II for the plaintiff.\nSowers, Avery & Crosswhite by William E. Crosswhite and McElwee, Hall & McElwee by John E. Hall for the defendant." }, "file_name": "0574-01", "first_page_order": 598, "last_page_order": 602 }