100 N.C. App. 1 - Lawrence v. Lawrence’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “all real and personal property acquired by either spouse or both spouses during the course of the marriage and before the date of the separation of the parties, and presently owned, except property determined to be separate property or divisible property.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 260 N.C. App. 467 - Berens v. Berens · 241 N.C. App. 487 - Nicks v. Nicks

2. “The trial court erred by relying on defendant’s use of separate property to purchase the 24 acre tract to rebut the presumption of a gift to the marital estate. Additionally, the findings that this property was “ancestral,” that plaintiff did not know its location and her lack of testimony that she understood that defendant intended to make a gift are irrelevant to the issue of whether this property is marital property. The remaining basis for the trial court’s determination that the gift presumption was rebutted is defendant’s testimony that he did not intend to make a gift to his wife. “Whether defendant succeeded in rebutting the presumption of gift to the marital estate by clear, cogent and convincing evidence is a matter left to the trial court’s discretion.” McLean v. McLean, 88 N.C. App. 285, 290 , 363 S.E.2d 95, 98-99 (1987), aff’d, 323 N.C. 543 , 374 S.E.2d 376 (1988). The general rule is that “[u]pon appellate review of a case heard without a jury the trial court’s findings of fact are conclusive on appeal if there is evidence to support them . . . .” Draughon v. Draughon, 82 N.C. App. 738, 740 , 347 S.E.2d 871, 872 (1986), cert. denied, 319 N.C. 103 , 353 S.E.2d 107 (1987). Although the trial court here found as a fact that defendant had rebutted the gift presumption, the court erred in relying on evidence that has no bearing on the issue. Accordingly, we remand to the trial court for a determination whether defendant’s relevant evidence was sufficiently clear, cog”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 215 N.C. App. 495 - Romulus v. Romulus

3. “This property is ancestral property and has been in the Defendant’s maternal ancestry for over 100 years. The Court further finds that when the Plaintiff took an appraiser to these tracts of land for an appraisal to be made in Mitchell County to testify in this cause, the Plaintiff did not know where the 24 acres or the 2.14 acres were located on Conley Ridge Road. That the Defendant testified that at no time did he ever intend to make a gift of any of. these deeds to the Mitchell County property to his wife. That the Plaintiff did not testify that she understood that the Defendant intended to make her a gift of the Mitchell County property. The Court finds that the evidence is clear, cogent and convincing and of sufficient weight to rebut the presumption of gift created by the deeds being in the form of tenants by the entirety.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 215 N.C. App. 495 - Romulus v. Romulus