Motley v. Motley, 593
| Decision Date | 16 June 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 593,593 |
| Citation | 120 S.E.2d 422,255 N.C. 190 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Laura R. MOTLEY v. W. E. MOTLEY. |
Herring, Walton & Parker, Southport, for plaintiff.
S. B. Frink, Southport, for defendant.
The defendant does not except to or assign as error the order of the court below overruling the demurrer to the plaintiff's first cause of action, or to the allowance of plaintiff's motion to strike the plea in bar set out in the defendant's further answer and defense. He appeals only from the order making the allowances hereinabove set out.
In the hearing below the defendant introduced in evidence the antenuptial contract dated 24 September 1956, and relies thereon as a release and a bar to the right of plaintiff to have the court award her attorneys' fees and alimony pendente lite, citing G.S. § 52-13. This statute reads as follows: 'Contracts between husband and wife not forbidden by § 52-12 and not inconsistent with public policy are valid, and any persons of full age about to be married, and, subject to § 52-12, any married person, may release and quitclaim dower, tenancy by the curtesy, and all other rights which they might respectively acquire or may have acquired by marriage in the property of each other; and such releases may be pleaded in bar of any action or proceeding for the recovery of the rights and estates so released.'
It will be noted that the foregoing statute relates to the release of an interest in property, but has no bearing whatever on the right of a wife to support.
In the case of Ritchie v. White, 225 N.C. 450, 35 S.E.2d 414, 415, Stacy, C. J. speaking for the Court, said:
'While it is true that in ordinary transactions married women are permitted to deal with their carnings and property practically as they please or as free traders, Price v. Charlotte Electric R. Co., 160 N.C. 450, 76 S.E. 502, still there is nothing in the statutes to indicate a purpose on the part of the General Assembly to reduce the institution of marriage, or the obligations of family life, to a commercial basis. G.S. § 52-12; § 52-13. It is the public policy of the State that a husband shall provide support for himself and his family. 41 C.J.S. Husband and Wife, § 14, p. 404; 26 Am.Jur., 934. This duty he may not shirk, contract away, or transfer to another. 41 C.J.S., Husband and Wife, § 15, p. 407. It is not a 'debt' in the legal sense of the word, but an obligation imposed by law, and penal sanctions are provided for its wilful neglect or abandonment.
* * *
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Osborne v. Osborne
...H. Clark, Law of Domestic Relations in the United States 420 (1968). The holding in French has been followed in Motley v. Motley, 255 N.C. 190, 120 S.E.2d 422 (1961). Perhaps the closest this court has come to addressing the issue is Kovler v. Vagenheim, 333 Mass. 252, 130 N.E.2d 557 (1955)......
-
Marriage of Higgason, In re
...agreement is unenforceable.' This is the majority rule, as laid down in the following cases, among many others: Motley v. Motley, 255 N.C. 190, 120 S.E.2d 422, 423--424; Hillman v. Hillman, 69 N.Y.S.2d 134, affirmed 273 App.Div. 960, 79 N.Y.S.2d 325; Kershner v. Kershner, 244 App.Div. 34, 2......
-
Estate of Tucci, Matter of
...may not shirk their spousal duties of support and alimony and yet live together as a married couple. E.g., Motley v. Motley, 255 N.C. 190, 193, 120 S.E.2d 422, 424 (1961) (Section 52-10(a) would not validate antenuptial waiver of support); see also Gray v. Snyder, 704 F.2d 709, 712 (4th Cir......
-
Howell v. Landry
...of its alimony provisions. A premarital agreement concerning alimony is void as against public policy. Motley v. Motley, 255 N.C. 190, 193, 120 S.E.2d 422, 424 (1961). The husband does not dispute the unenforceability of the alimony provisions, but he asserts the property provisions are sev......
-
Insuring the knot: the Massachusetts approach to postnuptial agreements.
...policy." 233 So. 2d at 382. As such, the Posner court's decision marked a radical change from the norm. See, e.g., Motley v. Motley, 120 S.E.2d 422, 424 (N.C. 1961) (holding prenuptial agreement absolving husband of duty to support wife void as against public policy); Crouch v. Crouch, 385 ......