Rauchfuss v. Rauchfuss
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
MARTIN, Judge.
The defendant contends the trial court erred as a matter of law in concluding that a resulting trust should be impressed upon the real property, because there was no showing by plaintiff that she contributed any of the consideration for the property.
It is one of the essentials of the peculiar estate by entirety sometimes enjoyed by husband and wife that the spouse be jointly entitled as well as jointly named in the deed. Board of Architecture v. Lee, 264 N.C. 602, 142 S.E. 2d 643 (1965); Deese v. Deese, 176 N.C. 527, 97 S.E. 475 (1918); Freeman v. Belfer, 173 N.C. 581, 92 S.E.…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Link v. LinkSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
- Avery v. StewartSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1904
- Fulp v. FulpSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
- Bowen v. DardenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
- Eubanks v. EubanksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Hinson v. HinsonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1986
- Gardner v. GardnerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1979
- Cornelison v. CornelisonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980
- Dillingham v. DillinghamCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2010
- West v. First Agricultural BankMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1981