# Kirkman v. Wilson

> Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 1, 1990 · 98 N.C. App. 242

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8909888

## Case

- **Full name:** ROY L. KIRKMAN and wife, LULA B. KIRKMAN CLINTON (NMI) KIRKMAN and wife, ANN LYVONNE KIRKMAN and JAMES E. KIRKMAN (Unmarried) v. ADDIE WILSON (Widow) ZENO M. EVERETTE, JR. and wife, CAROL H. EVERETTE ERNEST F. BOYD and wife, SYBIL E. BOYD BRENDA H. MANNING LOUIS EARL TOLER and wife, JOYCE D. TOLER LINWOOD EARL BRAXTON and wife, EARLINE BRAXTON ELVIRA JOHNSON (Widow) RICHARD D. JEWELL and wife, PATSY JOHNSON JEWELL and MARIE H. WISE (Widow), and Third Party v. J. L. WILSON and wife, ADDIE WILSON CORA LEE BAILEY and husband, DENNIS BAILEY JIMMY MORRIS and wife, JANICE MARLINE MORRIS DORIS EVELYN SADLER and husband, CLEM M. SADLER BRITT ANNIE WARREN and husband, JAMES W. WARREN DORA LEE SUMRELL and husband, WILLIAM H. SUMRELL STEPHEN KITE and wife, JULIA LAURA KITE GUY C. FORNES and wife, LENA FRANCES FORNES JAMES S. DIXON and wife, AMANDA DIXON and CLAUDIS DIXON and wife, ADA MAE DIXON, Third Party
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of North Carolina
- **Decided:** May 1, 1990
- **Citations:** 98 N.C. App. 242; 390 S.E.2d 698; 1990 N.C. App. LEXIS 399
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Greene
- **Judges:** Eagles, Greene, Parker
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8909888

## Opinion text

Judge GREENE
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I accept that a vested remainder interest which is either specifically referenced in or a part of the thirty-year chain of record title is sufficient to protect the interests of the vested remaindermen. However, I would go further. I do not accept that the General Assembly intended by its enactment of the Marketable Title Act to eliminate any vested remainder interests, including those not *253 specifically referenced in the thirty-year chain of record title. It appears more consistent with the policy and purposes enunciated by the General Assembly, N.C.G.S. § 47B-1, that the Act was “intended by the General Assembly to eliminate ancient nonpossessory interests, obsolete restrictions and technical defects in title —not vested remainders. Any other interpretation would require that remaindermen take precautionary steps to preserve their interests, including the filing of periodic notices of their claim pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes, § 47B-4.” P. Hetrick & J. McLaughlin, Jr., Webster’s Real Estate Law in North Carolina § 508.5, at 698-699 (3d ed. 1988) (footnote omitted).
Accordingly, I determine the trial court erred in concluding as a matter of law that the plaintiffs’ interests in the property were “extinguished by Chapter 47B of the General Statutes of North Carolina.” I would therefore vacate the order of the trial court in its entirety and remand the matter for further proceedings.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8909888. Public record. Not legal advice.