Hinton v. HintonÂ, 792 S.E.2d 202

Florence Hinton sued for absolute divorce in 2000; the complaint caption named her son, Willie G. Hinton II, as defendant, but she intended to sue her husband, Willie G. Hinton, Sr.
Willie G. Hinton, Sr. filed a handwritten answer (captioned with his correct name) admitting the complaint’s allegations shortly after service.
The district court entered a divorce judgment in 2000 that mistakenly listed the son as the defendant.
In 2015 Mrs. Hinton moved under Rule 60 to set aside the 2000 divorce judgment as void because it purported to divorce her from her son; the court set the judgment aside.
Three of Mr. Hinton’s out-of-wedlock children (Movants) moved to intervene, claiming heirs’ interests in their father’s estate could be affected; the trial court denied intervention, concluding Mr. Hinton was never a party and Movants had no interest in the action.
The Court of Appeals vacated the denial of intervention in part and remanded, holding the trial court erred in concluding Mr. Hinton was never a party because his answer subjected him to the court’s jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Movants were entitled to intervene under Rule 24(a)(2)	Movants (as heirs) would be practically impaired if the divorce relief allowed Mrs. Hinton to claim spousal allowances or intestate share; they should be allowed to protect that interest	Trial court: Mr. Hinton was never a party; Movants therefore have no interest in the action and cannot intervene	Court of Appeals: Trial court erred; because Mr. Hinton filed an answer he was a party and subject to jurisdiction, so denial of intervention must be vacated and reconsidered under Rule 24
Whether the 2000 divorce judgment was void for impossibility (divorcing a son)	Mrs. Hinton: judgment is void ab initio because it purported to dissolve marriage with her son, a person she was never married to	Trial court: agreed and set aside the 2000 judgment	Trial court’s setting aside of the judgment affirmed by trial court; Court of Appeals did not disturb that ruling here and focused on intervention issue

Bailey & Assocs., Inc. v. Wilmington Bd. of Adjust., 202 N.C. App. 177, 689 S.E.2d 576 (2010) (elements and standard for intervention of right under Rule 24(a)(2))
Olivetti Corp. v. Ames Bus. Sys., Inc., 319 N.C. 534, 356 S.E.2d 578 (1987) (mixed questions of law and fact in findings are fully reviewable)
Anderson v. Seascape at Holden Plantation, LLC, 232 N.C. App. 3, 753 S.E.2d 691 (2014) (appellate reversal and remand where trial court wrongly denied motion to intervene)