Kuder v. Schroeder
North Carolina Court of Appeals
110 N.C. App. 355, 430 S.E.2d 271 (1993)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
In 1978, Cynthia Kuder (plaintiff) and Thomas Schroeder (defendant) were married. In 1984, the couple had a child. During their marriage, Kuder and Schroeder orally agreed that Kuder would work as a teacher to provide financial support for the whole family while Schroeder attended college and graduate school. In agreeing to this arrangement, Kuder gave up her career as a veterinarian. The couple further agreed that Schroeder would solely support the family when he was done with school and that Kuder could then become a full-time stay-at-home mother. Schroeder obtained a law degree, but he could not immediately earn enough to support the family. Kuder agreed to continue working and not to have any more children so that Schroeder could start his own business. Finally, in late 1989, Schroeder obtained a full-time law-firm position that would allow him to financially support the family. Three months later, Schroeder disclosed to Kuder that he no longer loved her, and the couple separated. Kuder sued Schroeder to recover damages for her provision of financial support to him. Kuder asserted contract and quasi-contract claims. The trial court dismissed Kuder’s claims, and Kuder appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wells, J.)
Concurrence (Wynn, J.)
Dissent (Greene, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.