Tilley v. Tilley, 689

• Decision Date: 14 December 1966
• Docket Number: No. 689,689
• Citation: 151 S.E.2d 592,268 N.C. 630
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: John Douglas TILLEY, Individually and John Douglas Tilley, Executor of the Estate of Carey C. Tilley, Deceased v. Mary Ann Hall TILLEY.

Page 592

151 S.E.2d 592

268 N.C. 630

John Douglas TILLEY, Individually and John Douglas Tilley Executor of the Estate of Carey C. Tilley, Deceased v. Mary Ann Hall TILLEY.

No. 689.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 14, 1966.

Robert E. Lee, Jr., Winston-Salem, and Schoch, Schoch & Schoch, High Point, for plaintiff appellee.

Smith, Moore, Smith, Schell & Hunter, by James R. Turner, Greensboro, for defendant appellant.

BOBBITT, Justice.

Allegations and admissions in the pleadings establish the facts narrated below.

Carey C. Tilley and defendant were married July 20, 1962. They separated February 6, 1964. Defendant filed an action for alimony without divorce. Carey C. Tilley answered and alleged a cross action for divorce from bed and board. On April 27, 1964, a consent judgment was entered in said action and the parties executed a 'Contract and Deed of Separation.' Carey C. Tilley died December 23, 1964. Plaintiff qualified as executor on December 28, 1964. Defendant filed her purported dissent to said will on February 4, 1965.

The consent judgment, which was signed by his Honor Allen H. Gwyn, the presiding judge, and by the parties and their counsel, dismissed the action and the cross action 'with prejudice.' The judgment recites 'a full and complete settlement of all matters and things in controversy' on the terms set forth in the 'Contract and Deed of Separation.'

The 'Contract and Deed of Separation' were duly executed and acknowledged before Judge Gwyn, who, after examination of defendant separate and apart from Carey C. Tilley, her husband, found it was not unreasonable or injurious to her and so certified as provided in the statute then codified as G.S. § 52--12.

The 'Contract and Deed of Separation,' in brief summary, provided: The parties agreed to continue to live separate and apart. Carey C. Tilley agreed to execute and deliver to defendant a quitclaim deed to the homeplace in Jamestown, North Carolina, and to transfer to defendant's son all his right, title and interest in a certain automobile. They agreed upon a division of certain articles of personal property. Each released all rights by reason of their marriage to any and all property then owned or thereafter acquired by the other, 'including the right to administer and the right by the laws of distribution to a part of the personal estate' of the other. Carey C. Tilley agreed to pay, 'in full and complete discharge of all his obligation for her support, maintenance, subsistence and counsel fees,' the sum of $8,625.00, of which $2,500.00 was to be paid immediately and Carey C. Tilley was to execute and deliver to defendant a note for $6,125.00 payable at the rate of $200.00 a month until the full sum of $6,125.00 was paid, without interest. It was provided that, '(u)pon execution and delivery of said note in the amount of $6,125.00, the party of the first part (Carey C. Tilley) is fully and completely discharged of and from any and all liability in connection with the support, subsistence, maintenance and counsel fees of the party of the second part (defendant).'

Defendant's right to dissent depends upon whether she would be entitled to a widow's share in Carey C. Tilley's estate had he died intestate. Nothing else appearing, the terms of the 'Contract and Deed of Separation' constitute a bar to defendant's asserted right to a widow's share. Defendant does not attack the validity of the 'Contract and Deed of Separation' when executed, acknowledged and approved by Judge Gwyn. She contends the provisions of the 'Contract and Deed of Separation' that would otherwise bar her were nullified by subsequent events alleged in the second and third further answers and defenses.

'A motion for judgment on the pleadings admits, for the purpose of the motion, the allegations of the adverse party, and the pleading of the adverse party must be liberally construed.' 3 Strong, N.C. Index, Pleadings § 30. Judgments on the pleadings are not favored. Edwards v. Edwards, 261 N.C. 445, 449, 135 S.E.2d 18, 21.

In her second further answer and defense, defendant alleged: 'Subsequent to April 27, 1964, the defendant and Carey C. Tilley became reconciled and lived together and cohabited as husband and wife in Jamestown, North Carolina and at other places.' Defendant's third further answer and defense contains this allegation: The defendant and Carey C. Tilley cancelled the separation agreement referred to in paragraph 9 of the plaintiff's complaint.' Paragraph 9 of the complaint refers to said 'Contract and Deed of Separation.'

In the opinion of Ervin, J., in Campbell v. Campbell, 234 N.C. 188, 66 S.E.2d 672, it is stated that 'a separation agreement is annulled, avoided and rescinded, at least as to the future, by the act of the spouses in subsequently resuming conjugal cohabitation. Reynolds v. Reynolds, 210 N.C. 554, 187 S.E. 768; State v. Gossett, 203 N.C. 641, 166 S.E. 754; Moore v. Moore, 185 N.C. 332, 117 S.E. 12; Archbell v. Archbell, 158 N.C. 408, 409, 74 S.E. 327, Ann.Cas.1913D, 261; Smith v. King, 107 N.C. 273, 12 S.E. 57.' Later decisions contain similar general statements: Turner v. Turner, 242 N.C. 533, 538, 89 S.E.2d 245, 248; Williams v. Williams, 261 N.C. 48, 134 S.E.2d 227.

In Jones v. Lewis, 243 N.C. 259, 90 S.E.2d 547, Denny, J. (later C.J.), stated: 'It is well established in this jurisdiction that where a husband and wife enter into a separation agreement and thereafter become reconciled and renew their marital relations, the agreement is terminated for every purpose in so far as it remains executory. (Citations) Even so, a reconciliation and resumption of marital relations by the parties to a separation agreement would not revoke or invalidate a duly executed deed of conveyance in a property settlement between the parties.' This statement has been quoted with approval in Hutchins v. Hutchins, 260 N.C. 628, 133 S.E.2d 459, and in Joyner v. Joyner, 264 N.C. 27, 140 S.E.2d 714.

In Stanley v. Cox, 253 N.C. 620, 629, 117 S.E.2d 826, 832, these statements appear: 'For a discussion of the clear distinction between the provisions and considerations for a property settlement and those for alimony see 17A Am.Jur., Divorce and Separation, § 883 et seq. * * * See Jones v. Lewis, 243 N.C. 259, 90 S.E.2d 547, to the effect that an executed property settlement is not affected by a mere reconciliation and resumption of cohabitation.'

The...