From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Haywood v. Haywood

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Feb 1, 1993
333 N.C. 342 (N.C. 1993)

Summary

finding that the failure to mention a requirement in a statute indicated an intent to exclude it

Summary of this case from Washington v. Cline

Opinion

No. 181A92

Filed 12 February 1993

Appeal by defendant pursuant to N.C.G.S. 7A-30(2) from a decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 106 N.C. App. 91, 415 S.E.2d 565 (1992), affirming in part and reversing in part a judgment and order of equitable distribution, entered by LaBarre, J., on 7 September 1990 in District Court, Durham County. Heard in the Supreme Court 14 January 1993.

Hunter, Wharton Lynch, by John V. Hunter III, and Egbert L. Haywood, Jr., for plaintiff-appellee.

Randall, Jervis Hill, by John C. Randall, for defendant-appellant.


Defendant's petition for discretionary review as to additional issues having been denied on 24 June 1992, our review is limited solely to the issues raised in the dissent. As to each such issue the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed for the reasons stated in the dissent by Judge Wynn, 106 N.C. App. at 101, 415 S.E.2d at 571. The case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this holding.

REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.

Justices WHICHARD and PARKER did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.


Summaries of

Haywood v. Haywood

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Feb 1, 1993
333 N.C. 342 (N.C. 1993)

finding that the failure to mention a requirement in a statute indicated an intent to exclude it

Summary of this case from Washington v. Cline
Case details for

Haywood v. Haywood

Case Details

Full title:EGBERT L. HAYWOOD v. MARY R. HAYWOOD

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Feb 1, 1993

Citations

333 N.C. 342 (N.C. 1993)
425 S.E.2d 696

Citing Cases

Washington v. Cline

Defendants' interpretation would provide almost no weight to the phrase “in fact received,” and therefore we…

Washington v. Cline

Viewed under the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, which means the expression of one thing…