White v. White

• Decision Date: 16 December 2014
• Docket Number: No. COA14–274.,COA14–274.
• Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
• Parties: Karen H. WHITE, Plaintiff, v. Richard McMullen WHITE, Defendant.

768 S.E.2d 65 (Table)

Karen H. WHITE, Plaintiff

v.Richard McMullen WHITE, Defendant.

No. COA14–274.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Dec. 16, 2014.

The Twiford Law Firm, P.C., by Edward A. O'Neal, for Plaintiff–Appellant.

Pritchett & Burch, PLLC, by Lloyd C. Smith, Jr., Lloyd C. Smith, III, and Jonathan E. Huddleston, for Defendant–Appellee.

DILLON, Judge.

Karen H. White (“Wife”) appeals from the trial court's declaratory judgment barring her claim for equitable distribution of real property acquired by Richard McMullen White (“Husband”) in his own name during the marriage based on the terms of an antenuptial agreement. She also appeals from the final consent judgment awarding alimony, attorney's fees, and equitable distribution. For the following reasons, we affirm.

I. Background

Husband and Wife were married in 1983 and three children were born of the marriage. Shortly before their marriage, the parties signed an antenuptial agreement (the “Antenuptial”) which addressed their rights to certain property owned by either party.

At the time of their nuptials, Husband owned real estate associated with his used car business; Plaintiff owned personal property but not any real estate. During the marriage, Husband acquired several rental properties titled in his name. Also during the marriage, Husband and Wife purchased their marital home, which was titled in both of their names.

In 2009, the parties separated. Wife filed this action raising claims for child custody and support, post separation support and alimony, equitable distribution, and attorney's fees. Husband filed his answer admitting that the marital home was “marital property” but pleaded that the Antenuptial was a bar to equitable distribution with respect to property he owned in his individual name.

In 2010, Wife filed a motion for declaratory judgment to determine the rights and obligations of the parties under the Antenuptial. Husband filed a motion for partial summary judgment requesting the trial court to decree that the terms of the Antenuptial operated as a bar to Wife's claim for equitable distribution of the real estate titled to him.

In 2011, following a hearing on the matter, the trial court entered a declaratory judgment (the “Declaratory Judgment”) stating that the Antenuptial was unambiguous and that it barred Wife's claim for equitable distribution of Husband's real estate.

In 2013, the trial court entered a consent order (the “Consent Order”) which resolved the remaining claims of the Wife. The Consent Order stated that Wife's claims for equitable distribution of Husband's real estate had been adjudicated by the Declaratory Judgment and that Wife had not waived her right to appeal the Declaratory Judgment.

On 2 October 2013, Wife filed appeal from the Declaratory Judgment and the Consent Judgment.

II. Analysis

On appeal, Wife contends that the trial court erred in finding that the Antenuptial was unambiguous in creating a waiver of her marital interest in real property acquired by Husband during the marriage. She concludes that this property should be classified as marital property and subject to equitable distribution. Husband counters that Wife waived any challenge to the Consent Judgment; that her entire appeal should be dismissed because she has attempted to manipulate the rules of procedure to appeal from an interlocutory order; and that the Declaratory Judgment and Consent Judgment should be, otherwise, affirmed.

A. Waiver/Dismissal

Husband contends that Wife waived her right to appeal from the Consent Judgment which set the final terms of equitable distribution by failing to raise any argument in her brief challenging this judgment. Wife concedes in her reply brief that she has abandoned her appeal of the claims adjudicated by the Consent Judgment. Accordingly, any appeal from the adjudication of those claims has been waived. However, Wife's failure to present an argument regarding the Consent Judgment does not waive her right to appeal from the Declaratory Judgment adjudicating her equitable distribution claim regarding the real estate acquired by Husband in his name during the marriage.

Husband also argues that Wife's appeal from the Declaratory Judgment should be dismissed, contending that she has attempted to manipulate the rules of procedure by signing the Consent Judgment so that her appeal from the Declaratory Judgment would not be interlocutory. Specifically, Husband argues that the Consent Judgment “specifically acknowledged the right to reinstate a claim if the appeal was successful” in contradiction to our holding in Hill ex Rel Hill v. West,177 N.C.App. 132, 627 S.E.2d 662 (2006).

We believe that our holding in Hillis distinguishable from the present case and, therefore, overrule Husband's argument that Wife's appeal should be dismissed. We recently noted that “[t]his Court has ... repeatedly limited Hillto the specific, unusual facts present in that case.” Tong v. Dunn,––– N.C.App. ––––, ––––, 752 S.E.2d 669, 674 (2013) (citing Curl v. Am. Multimedia, Inc.,187 N.C.App. 649, 654, 654 S.E.2d 76, 80 (2007) ; Goodman v. Holmes & McLaurin Attorneys at Law,192 N.C.App. 467, 472, 665 S.E.2d 526, 530 (2008) ; and Duval v. OM Hospitality, LLC,186 N.C.App. 390, 651 S.E.2d 261 (2007) ). In Hill, the plaintiffs raised a number of claims against a number of parties. 177 N.C.App. at 133, 627 S.E.2d at 663. The trial court granted summary judgment against the plaintiffs with respect to some of the claims. Id.This Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal from a partial summary judgment order as interlocutory, and noted that additionally the plaintiffs had failed to include a statement of the grounds for appellate review in violation of the appellate rules of procedure. Id.at 133, 627 S.E.2d at 663. On remand to the trial court, the plaintiffs attempted to effect an immediate appeal from the partial summary judgment order by voluntarily dismissing their remaining claims in a rather unique manner. Id.at 135, 627 S.E.2d at 664. Specifically, the plaintiffs dismissed their remaining claims in the form of a consent judgment entered by the trial court whereby the plaintiffs' remaining claims were dismissed. Id.at 134–35, 627 S.E.2d at 663–64. However, the consent judgment allowed the plaintiffs to resurrect these dismissed claims in the event the plaintiffs won their appeal regarding the other claims, even if the appeal was not resolved in one year, thereby circumventing the requirements of N.C. R. Civ. P. 41. Id.We dismissed the appeal as having been taken from an interlocutory order, stating that the “manipulat[ion of] the Rules of Civil Procedure in an attempt to appeal the [ ] summary judgment that otherwise would not be appealable” did not convert the partial summary judgment order into an appealable final judgment. Id.at 135, 627 S.E.2d at 664.

In the present case, however, the Consent Judgment does not contain any language that attempts to manipulate N.C. R. Civ. P. 41 through the inclusion of a statement that claims could be reinstated at any time without regard to the one-year limitation. This judgment simply states that it is a final judgment on the equitable distribution claim “pending” a successful appeal by Wife challenging the trial court's Declaratory Judgment regarding the Antenuptial, which could operate to reinstate the claim for equitable distribution with respect to Husband's real estate. Therefore, Hillis not controlling and Defendant's argument is overruled.

B. Antenuptial Agreement

Wife argues that the trial court erred in finding that there were no ambiguities in the Antenuptial and concluding that it barred equitable distribution of the property acquired by one of the parties during their marriage. We disagree.

“Declaratory judgment affords the appropriate procedure to alleviat[e] uncertainty in the interpretation of written instruments and to clarify litigation associated with an actual controversy.” McCabe v. Dawkins,97 N.C.App. 447, 449, 388 S.E.2d 571, 572 (citation omitted), disc. review denied,326 N.C. 597, 393 S.E.2d 880 (1990). Under the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1–253 et seq.,“the court's findings of fact are conclusive if supported by any competent evidence; and a judgment supported by such findings will be affirmed, even though there is evidence which might sustain findings to the contrary[.]” Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Allison,51 N.C.App. 654, 657, 277 S.E.2d 473, 475, disc. review denied,303 N.C. 315, 281 S.E.2d 652 (1981). Thus, “[t]he function of our review is, then, to determine whether the record contains competent evidence to support the findings[ ] and whether the findings support the conclusions.” Id.The trial court's conclusions of law are reviewable de novo. Cross v. Capital Transaction Grp., Inc.,191 N.C.App. 115, 117, 661 S.E.2d 778, 780 (2008) (citation omitted), disc. review denied,363 N.C. 124, 672 S.E.2d 687 (2009).

Two people who are contemplating marriage may enter into a valid contract before marriage with respect to the property and property rights of either or both after marriage. Stewart v. Stewart,222 N.C. 387, 391, 23 S.E.2d 306, 308 (1942). We have further explained that “[t]he term ‘antenuptial agreement’ or ‘marriage settlement’ is often applied to such agreements” and that “a valid antenuptial agreement may serve as a plea in bar to the equitable distribution of property acquired during the marriage[,]” pursuant to N.C. Gen.Stat. § 50–20(d). Prevatte v. Prevatte,104 N.C.App. 777, 780–81, 411 S.E.2d 386, 388 (1991). In other words, even though the right to equitable distribution is a statutory property right, that “right may be waived by a complete property settlement which contains a general release of spousal property rights.” Id .at 781, 411 S.E.2d at 388. Husband pleaded as a bar to equitable distribution of his real estate the terms of the Antenuptial. Therefore, the issue before us is whether the Antenuptial operated as a bar to Wife's claim for equitable...