92 N.C. App. 116 - McIver v. McIver’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently September 2014 · most notably 111 N.C. App. 460 - Smith v. Smith (1993), 104 N.C. App. 461 - Ciobanu v. Ciobanu (1991)
25 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on 72 N.C. App. 372 - Wade v. Wade · Wade v. Wade · Sides v. Duke University · Armstrong v. Armstrong · 74 N.C. App. 144 - McLeod v. McLeod
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It appears from the record, as the husband maintains, that the trial judge improperly relied upon the parties’ premarital relationship-in particular, the fact that they lived together-in classifying certain property as marital. In doing so, the judge operated under a misapprehension of the law. Only married persons are afforded the protections of our equitable distribution statute. That statute is unambiguous: property must be acquired during marriage to be classified as marital property, and only marital property is subject to distribution. We decline to expand the Legislature’s clear definition of marital property to include property acquired prior to marriage. The record shows that the wife’s premarital contributions to what later became the marital home consisted of services in the form of housekeeping, upkeep of the property, and helping to construct a seawall. Though we do not decide whether a spouse may have other remedies for services provided before marriage, the potential availability of equitable remedies-such as constructive trust, resulting trust, recovery in quantum meruit or quasi-contract-does not transform property acquired before marriage into marital property subject to equitable distribution under Section 50-20. Accordingly, we conclude that it was error for the trial judge to classify as marital any interest in property acquired before the parties were married but while they lived together.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“North Carolina has adopted the source of funds rule in determining whether property is marital or separate. Under the source of funds analysis, property is acquired as it is paid for, and thus may include both marital and separate ownership interests.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[a] party may file a cross action for equitable distribution in a suit for an absolute divorce, or may file a separate action instituted for the purpose of CT Page 7295 securing an order of equitable distribution.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.