N.C. Gen. Stat. » Chapter 39
NC General Statutes

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 39-13.1 (2026)

Validation of certain deeds, etc., executed by married women without private examination

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NCLEGncleg.gov (official) JustiaChapter 39 CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) No deed, contract, conveyance, leasehold or other instrument executed since the seventh day of November, 1944, shall be declared invalid because of the failure to take the private examination of any married woman who was a party to such deed, contract, conveyance, leasehold or other instrument.

(b) Any deed, contract, conveyance, lease or other instrument executed prior to February 7, 1945, which is in all other respects regular except for the failure to take the private examination of a married woman who is a party to such deed, contract, conveyance, lease or other instrument is hereby validated and confirmed to the same extent as if such private examination had been taken, provided that this section shall not apply to any instruments now involved in any pending litigation. (1945, c. 73, s. 21 1/2; 1969, c. 1008, s. 1.)

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1970–1992 · leading case: Mansour v. Rabil, 177 S.E.2d 849 (N.C. 1970).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mansour v. Rabil, 177 S.E.2d 849 (N.C. 1970). · cites it 4× “52-8 and G.S. 39-13.1 (b) (curative statutes) would take this case out of the operation of G.”
Dunn v. Pate, 415 S.E.2d 102 (N.C. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “§ 52-8 or validated by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 39-13.1 (a) and held that the deed in question was void.”
West v. Hays, 346 S.E.2d 690 (N.C. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 8× “We reverse, holding that G.S. 39-13.1 and G.S. 52-8 cannot cure the void deed in question.”
Johnson v. Burrow, 256 S.E.2d 811 (N.C. Ct. App. 1979). “Further, subsection (b) thereof required in part that “[t]he certifying officer examining the wife shall incorporate in his certificate a statement of his conclusions and findings of fact as to whether or not (sic) said contract is unreasonable or injurious to the wife.”
Dunn v. Pate, 390 S.E.2d 712 (N.C. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 8× “Plaintiffs’ sole assignment of error is whether the trial court committed reversible error by granting summary judgment in favor of defendants based on a finding that G.S. 39-13.1 or G.S. 52-8 cured the failure of the certifying officer to find and certify that the deed was not…”
DeJaager v. DeJaager, 267 S.E.2d 399 (N.C. Ct. App. 1980). “52-6 was the certificate that the deed was not unreasonable or injurious to the wife. We held there that the instrument in question was in all other respects proper.”
Faucette v. Griffin, 239 S.E.2d 712 (N.C. Ct. App. 1978). “2d 849, 857 (1970), Justice Moore in discussing a similar curative statute (G.S. 39-13.1 purporting to validate all deeds executed prior to 7 February 1945 by married women who had not been privately examined) stated that “[a] void contract cannot be validated by a subsequent…”
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 39-13.1(a): 1 case
Dunn v. Pate, 390 S.E.2d 712 (N.C. Ct. App. 1990). “Plaintiffs’ sole assignment of error is whether the trial court committed reversible error by granting summary judgment in favor of defendants based on a finding that G.S. 39-13.1 or G.S. 52-8 cured the failure of the certifying officer to find and certify that the deed was not…”
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 39-13.1(b): 4 cases
Johnson v. Burrow, 256 S.E.2d 811 (N.C. Ct. App. 1979). “Further, subsection (b) thereof required in part that “[t]he certifying officer examining the wife shall incorporate in his certificate a statement of his conclusions and findings of fact as to whether or not (sic) said contract is unreasonable or injurious to the wife.”
DeJaager v. DeJaager, 267 S.E.2d 399 (N.C. Ct. App. 1980). “52-6 was the certificate that the deed was not unreasonable or injurious to the wife. We held there that the instrument in question was in all other respects proper.”
West v. Hays, 346 S.E.2d 690 (N.C. Ct. App. 1986). “We reverse, holding that G.S. 39-13.1 and G.S. 52-8 cannot cure the void deed in question.”
Dunn v. Pate, 390 S.E.2d 712 (N.C. Ct. App. 1990). “Plaintiffs’ sole assignment of error is whether the trial court committed reversible error by granting summary judgment in favor of defendants based on a finding that G.S. 39-13.1 or G.S. 52-8 cured the failure of the certifying officer to find and certify that the deed was not…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.