N.C. Gen. Stat. » Chapter 52
NC General Statutes

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 52-2 (2026)

Capacity to contract

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NCLEGncleg.gov (official) JustiaChapter 52 CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subject to the provisions of G.S. 52-10 or 52-10.1, G.S. 39-7 and other regulations and limitations now or hereafter prescribed by the General Assembly, every married person is authorized to contract and deal so as to affect his or her real and personal property in the same manner and with the same effect as if he or she were unmarried. (1871-2, c. 193, s. 17; Code, s. 1826; Rev., s. 2094; 1911, c. 109; C.S., s. 2507; 1945, c. 73, s. 16; 1965, c. 878, s. 1; 1977, c. 375, s. 13.)

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1945–1997 · leading case: United States v. Yazell, 382 U.S. 341 (1966).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Yazell, 382 U.S. 341 (1966). · cites it 2× “020 (executory sales contract); N. C. Gen. Stat. § 52-2—or from acting as guarantors or sureties—see, e.”
North Carolina Baptist Hospitals, Inc. v. Harris, 354 S.E.2d 471 (N.C. 1987). · cites it 3× “109 (now N.C.G.S. § 52-2), giving a married woman the right to dispose of her own property without the permission of her husband, and N.”
Harrell v. Powell, 112 S.E.2d 81 (N.C. 1960). · cites it 4× “1911, G.S. 52-2, “every married woman is authorized to contract and deal so as to affect her real and personal property in the same manner and with the same effect as if she was unmarried.”
Melvin v. Mills-Melvin, 486 S.E.2d 84 (N.C. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 6× “The issue is whether Ms. Mills-Melvin’s conveyance of her property without the signature of her husband (the plaintiff) was a valid transfer of property.”
Eggleston v. . Eggleston, 47 S.E.2d 243 (N.C. 1948). “That incapacity has been removed in many states by the enactment of “Married Women’s Acts,” — statutes directly or impliedly giving them the power or the right to contract. The broad general powers of contract given under most of these statutes has in many instances been…”
Jones v. Statesville Ice & Fuel Co., 130 S.E.2d 324 (N.C. 1963). “, 2507 (now G.S. 52-2), known as the Martin Act, does not affect or purport to affect the relation of husband and wife, or their mutual rights and duties growing out of the marital relation.”
Cruthis v. Steele, 131 S.E.2d 344 (N.C. 1963). “Subject to well established exceptions, a married woman may contract and deal so as to affect her real and personal property in the same manner and with the same effect as if she was unmarried.”
Grimes v. Grimes, 267 S.E.2d 372 (N.C. Ct. App. 1980). “G.S. 52-2. Now where the wife executes a promissory note as a co-maker, she is primarily liable thereunder.”
Etheridge v. Wescott, 94 S.E.2d 846 (N.C. 1956). “The appellees are relying on what is said in McIntosh, North Carolina Practice and Procedure, section 258, page 244, as follows: “The Martin Act (1911) confers upon the married woman the power to bind herself as to her property by contract without the joinder of her husband,…”
Carlisle v. . Carlisle, 35 S.E.2d 418 (N.C. 1945). “, 52-2, provides: “Subject to the provisions of Section 52-12, regulating contracts of wife with husband affecting corpus or income of estate, every married woman is authorized to contract and deal so as to affect her real and personal property in the same manner and with'the…”
Heller v. Heller, 171 S.E.2d 335 (N.C. Ct. App. 1969). “” G.S. 52-2. Insofar as concerns any rights which the spouse of a married person might acquire by virtue of the provisions of G.”
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.