Rhue v. Rhue

• Decision Date: 18 March 2008
• Docket Number: No. COA07-453.,COA07-453.
• Citation: 658 S.E.2d 52
• Parties: Sylvia Diane RHUE, Plaintiff v. Doy Ray RHUE, Defendant.
• Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals

658 S.E.2d 52

Sylvia Diane RHUE, Plaintiff v. Doy Ray RHUE, Defendant.

No. COA07-453.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

March 18, 2008.

Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 28 June 2006 and order entered 3 November 2006 by Judge Benjamin G. Alford in Carteret County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 31 October 2007.

Williams Mullen Maupin Taylor, by Kevin W. Benedict, Raleigh, for plaintiff-appellee.

Bailey & Way, by John E. Way, Jr., Morehead City, for defendant-appellant.

CALABRIA, Judge.

Doy Ray Rhue ("defendant") appeals a judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding a portion of defendant's real property subject to a constructive trust and an order denying his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. We affirm.

Sylvia Diane Rhue ("plaintiff") and defendant (collectively "the parties") were married on 17 July 1976, separated in December 1976, and divorced on 23 March 1978. In June 1978, the parties reconciled and plaintiff moved into defendant's residence. Although the parties never remarried, they continued to live together until March 2003 when defendant asked plaintiff to leave. On 24 March 2004, plaintiff filed a complaint asserting claims for unjust enrichment, resulting and/or constructive trust, an equitable lien, and partnership. The Honorable Benjamin G. Alford ("Judge Alford") presided over a jury trial in Carteret County Superior Court held on 22 May 2006.

The parties' relationship lasted more than twenty-six years. Shortly after June 1978, plaintiff became the primary caregiver for defendant's son from a prior marriage, Doy Ray Rhue, Jr. ("Junior"). Junior had a son named Michael Ryan Rhue ("Michael"). When Junior passed away, Michael's mother asked plaintiff and defendant to take care of Michael. Later, plaintiff and defendant were granted legal custody of Michael. After the parties' relationship ended, plaintiff remained Michael's primary caregiver.

Defendant acquired thirteen different parcels of land which he told plaintiff were acquired to help provide for them in their retirement. All but one of those parcels was titled in defendant's name only. The parties personally built a home together on a lot that was one of five parcels of property known as the Ware Creek Property in Beaufort, North Carolina. The five parcels have been designated as parcels "A, B, C, D, & E" ("Ware Creek properties"). Two of the five parcels, parcels C and D, were acquired before the parties resumed their relationship in June 1978. Defendant acquired parcels A, B, and E after June 1978. The parties built a home on parcel C of the Ware Creek properties ("Parcel C home").

Plaintiff first assisted in the demolition and then the construction of the Parcel C home. Specifically, she helped tear down boards, take out nails, and dig the foundation. The construction lasted four years to enable the parties to pay the expenses in stages. Plaintiff continued to build the Parcel C home even when she worked outside the home in order to obtain health insurance for herself, defendant and Junior. Plaintiff also made the payments for a life insurance policy which, over time, totaled $17,509.58. Plaintiff assisted in paying the household expenses, $6,986.62 for defendant's medical bills when he became ill, and paid child care expenses for Michael.

Defendant was self-employed as a mechanic and worked on automobiles in the shed located behind their trailer. Plaintiff helped defendant build a better garage for his mechanic's business. When defendant began a small construction business known as Doy Ray Rhue Construction, plaintiff assisted in the business by helping to lay drainage pipes and rake gravel over the pipes. Plaintiff made payments from her personal checking account for the benefit of the construction business, including payments to workers for their labor and payments for materials and parts. Carl Rancer testified he observed plaintiff paying defendant's workers "many times" and "on a fairly regular basis."

Plaintiff testified that the parties' joint funds earned during the course of their relationship were used to buy the Ware Creek properties, along with eight other properties. Plaintiff presented exhibits indicating she paid $1,883.25 in "land payments." Plaintiff also testified that "[defendant] said it was always part mine. That's all I can tell you. He did and he promised." She added that "[o]ver the course of 25 years we done things together and he always told me it was part mine. And me taking care of his young'un, taking care of him and our household and everything else. . . ." She stated at trial that the money collected from rents on the properties was their money.

Defendant testified he told plaintiff that as long as he had a roof over his head, she would also always have one. Defendant also testified that he borrowed the money and paid for the properties at issue and plaintiff only contributed financially to payment of the McDaniel Road property which is titled in her name. Defendant further testified that plaintiff was not a partner in his business because she was employed outside the home.

Patricia Beck, a friend of the parties, testified that plaintiff and defendant worked side by side as a team. Patricia Beck also testified that defendant "always referred to [the property they owned] as our property . . . Diana and I purchased this." James Beckwith testified that plaintiff worked in defendant's construction business on a regular basis. Joan Beckwith testified the parties talked in general about buying different properties so they could grow old together and have property accumulated together. Mary Rancer testified she heard defendant say he would take care of plaintiff and illustrated her testimony with an example. When defendant was in the hospital preparing for open heart surgery, he was concerned about how to protect plaintiff. Mary Rancer also testified that defendant told her he would provide for plaintiff for as long as he lived and after he died. Defendant also told her of the plan to buy properties in order to bring in income.

At the close of the plaintiff's evidence, the court denied defendant's motion to dismiss the constructive trust claim. At the close of all the evidence, defendant renewed his motions to dismiss. The court did not rule on defendant's motions at the close of all the evidence but allowed arguments to address the instructions to the jury. The following day, after hearing further arguments, the trial court overruled defendant's objections to the constructive trust charge.

The trial court submitted ten issues to the jury. Although there were thirteen disputed parcels, some of the issues related to more than one tract of land. For example, issue 1 relates to parcels "C & D" and issue 2 relates to parcels "A, B, D, & E" of the Ware Creek properties. The jury found the parcels in issues 1 and 2 subject to a constructive trust in favor of the plaintiff, that the conduct of defendant deprived plaintiff of a beneficial interest in all five parcels and that plaintiff was entitled to a one hundred percent beneficial interest in all five parcels. The jury found that plaintiff was not entitled to a constructive trust on the remaining eight parcels of property.

On 28 June 2006, Judge Alford entered judgment on the jury verdicts. Defendant filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict as to the first issue on 6 July 2006. Judge Alford denied defendant's motion on 3 November 2006. Defendant timely filed his notice of appeal from the judgment and the order denying his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on 21 November 2006.

A. Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict

Defendant alleges the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict at the end of the plaintiff's evidence, denying his motion for a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence, and denying his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Defendant argued four issues: (1) the parcels were acquired "prior to any allegation of constructive trust"; (2) no evidence supports the proposition that defendant used the plaintiff's money when he purchased the property in question; (3) plaintiff attempted to use a common law marriage theory to establish a constructive trust; and (4) there is insufficient evidence to establish a constructive trust.

We note that defendant's motions at the close of the plaintiff's evidence and at the close of all the evidence were motions to dismiss for insufficient evidence and not motions for a directed verdict as he erroneously states in his brief. "[I]n a jury trial, the proper motion to dismiss is one for directed verdict pursuant to Rule 50(a)." Hill v. Lassiter, 135 N.C.App. 515, 517, 520 S.E.2d 797, 799-800 (1999) (citation omitted). Despite this error, we exercise our discretion to address the merits of defendant's argument. Wheeler v. Denton, 9 N.C.App. 167, 168, 175 S.E.2d 769, 770 (1970) ("[T]he name of the motion is not as important as the substance.").

B. Standard of Review

"When reviewing motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the trial court must determine whether the evidence, considered in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, is sufficient to present the case to the jury." Benton v. Hillcrest Foods, Inc., 136 N.C.App. 42, 47, 524 S.E.2d 53, 58 (1999) (citation omitted). "The evidence is sufficient to go to the jury when there is more than a scintilla of evidence to support each element of the claim." Guilford County v. Kane, 114 N.C.App. 243, 245, 441 S.E.2d 556, 557 (1994).

C. Unjust Enrichment

"The doctrine of unjust enrichment was devised by equity to exact the return of, or payment for, benefits received under circumstances where it would be unfair for the recipient to retain them without the contributor being repaid or compensated." Collins v. Davis, 68 N.C.App. 588, 591, 315 S.E.2d 759, 761, aff'd, 312 N.C. 324, 321 S.E.2d 892 (1984). "No...