175 N.C. App. 509 - Warren v. Warren’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

36 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[ N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50-20 (b)(4)] authorizes the court to classify postseparation payments of marital debt as divisible property. Whether these payments reduce the principal of the debt, the finance charges related to the debt, or interest related to the debt, the court should consider the postseparation payments as divisible property. If the post-separation reduction of the marital debt increases the net value of the marital property, the court may classify the increase as divisible property.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hill v. Hill · 247 N.C. App. 135 - Smith v. Smith

2. “exists regardless whether the trial court ultimately decides to divide the property equally or unequally.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Nordman v. Nordman · 253 N.C. App. 85 - Miller v. Miller

3. “Our courts have held, however, that the donor’s testimony alone that he lacked the requisite intent is insufficient to rebut the marital gift presumption. See Thompson v. Thompson, 93 N.C. App. 229, 232 , 377 S.E.2d 767, 768-69 (1989) (defendant’s testimony alone “certainly” did not rise to the level of clear, cogent, and convincing evidence). See also 3 Reynolds, supra, § 12.33, at 12-102 (“Often the only evidence of a lack of donative intent is the donor’s testimony. The appellate cases of North Carolina have uniformly held that such evidence alone will not satisfy the burden of rebutting the presumption by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence.”). Accordingly, because the only relevant evidence Mr. Warren offered to rebut the presumption was his own testimony, the trial court did not err in finding that the entire parcel was marital property.”

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