Court Opinion

ID: 9563720
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:45:36.152286+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:02.849176
License: Public Domain

PHILLIPS, Judge.
Plaintiff and defendant were divorced in December, 1982 and this appeal is from an order of equitable distribution in which the court found and concluded that a recovery plaintiff obtained for personal injuries that he sustained during the marriage and property that he bought with some of the proceeds are his separate property as the same is defined in G.S. 50-20(b)(2).
Though this is apparently a question of first impression in this state, it was answered long ago by our General Assembly. By enacting former G.S. 52-4 in 1913, it was established beyond dispute that the personal injury recoveries of all married women in this state are their “sole and separate property”; as, of course, the personal injury recoveries of married men had been since time immemorial. These undoubted facts were reestablished by our lawmaking body in 1965 when the present G.S. 52-4 was made applicable to married men and women alike. In pertinent part the statute now reads “such . . . recovery shall be his or her sole and separate property.” Though not referred to in the briefs by either party, this statute clearly controls the case, in our opinion, because nothing in the Equitable Distribution Act suggests that the General Assembly intended to render these long recognized, well established concepts inoperative. Since the legislative mandate is so plain we need not seek guidance from other jurisdictions and the many conflicting cases that the parties cite in their briefs will not be discussed; though we certainly think that far the better view, even in the absence of a statute like G.S. 52-4, is that a personal injury settlement or recovery of a married person, along with any property acquired by the recovery funds, is that person’s sole and separate property. See, Amato v. Amato, 180 N.J. Super. 210, 434 A. 2d 639 (1981); Bugh v. Bugh, 120 Ariz. 190, 608 P. 2d 329 (1980); Broussard v. Broussard, 340 So. 2d 1309 *661(1977); Graham v. Franco, 488 S.W. 2d 390 (Texas, 1972); and Soto v. Vandeventer, 56 N.M. 483, 245 P. 2d 826 (1952).
The obvious purpose of the Equitable Distribution Act is to require married persons to share their niaritally acquired property with each other — it is not to require either party to contribute his or her bodily health and powers to the assets for distribution — and the funds that the appellant claims to have a right to share in were paid to the appellee for injuries suffered by his body, which, of course, he had before the marriage.
Affirmed.
Judges Arnold and Cozort concur in the result.