Kearns v. Kearns, 6922SC331
| Decision Date | 22 October 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 6922SC331,6922SC331 |
| Citation | 6 N.C.App. 319,170 S.E.2d 132 |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Margrette Esther Pardue KEARNS v. Paul Rutherford KEARNS. |
Collier, Harris & Homesley, by W. H. McMillan, Statesville, for plaintiff appellee.
Chamblee & Nash, by M. L. Nash, Statesville, for defendant appellant.
Since plaintiff has brought forward no exceptions or assignments of error, her appeal is deemed abandoned under Rule 19(c), Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals.
The first question to be answered is whether the temporary order entered by the court is one from which an appeal may be taken. This question is raised by plaintiff's written motion in this Court to dismiss the appeal as being an appeal from a temporary order not affecting a substantial right. Under the totality of the circumstances of this case we hold that the case is properly before us.
Defendant contends that the portion of the order relating to the beneficiaries in his insurance policies is in error. Defendant's financial statement indicates present cash value of life insurance to be $1700 and monthly premiums therefor to be $420.04. The record is otherwise silent with respect to how much insurance defendant owned, what type of policies, the beneficiaries thereof, etc. Nor does the order indicate whether plaintiff and the children, or any of them, are beneficiaries of life insurance. There is nothing in the record to show whether compliance with this portion of the order would benefit plaintiff and the minor children nor whether a failure on the part of defendant to comply would result in harm to them, or any of them. Obviously this part of the order was not for the purpose of charging the insurance with a lien for the enforcement of the award of alimony or support. Plaintiff's complaint did not ask for any order concerning insurance. This portion of the court's order, in our opinion, was not proper in this case.
Defendant by assignments of error Nos. 1 and 2 contends that the court had no jurisdiction to enter the order because notice was not given in accordance with G.S. § 50--13.5(d)(1) and G.S. § 50--16.8(e), the former requiring five days' notice on a motion for custody and the latter requiring five days' notice before an order for alimony pendente lite can be issued, and that the order as signed is, therefore, null and void. On the facts of this case this contention is without merit. The first hearing was held on 26 February 1969 in Lexington and, as appears from the record, defendant was served on 22 February 1969. This notice obviously does not comply with the five-day statutory requirement. However, the record indicates that the court gave opportunity for either party to be heard the next week and did in fact hold another hearing, more than one week later, on 13 March 1969 in Statesville, North Carolina, which was attended by counsel for defendant. The order was signed on 14 March 1969 by Judge McConnell, the day after the second hearing. The defendant had 14 days' notice, including Saturdays and Sundays, before the second hearing was held and 15 days' notice before the order was signed. In Barnwell v. Barnwell, 241 N.C. 565, 85 S.E.2d 916 (1955), the facts are very similar to the case now before us. The Court in Barnwell entered an order on 18 May 1954 requiring defendant to pay subsistence and counsel fees pendente lite. In October it was shown by affidavit that defendant had failed to comply with the order, and an order to show cause why defendant should not be held in contempt was entered. Defendant argued that the order of 18 May was invalid because he had not been given notice. This lack of notice was admitted by plaintiff's counsel. It was also admitted that neither defendant nor his counsel had been present when the order was signed. The judge declined to hold the defendant in contempt but intimated that the plaintiff might make a new motion for temporary subsistence and counsel fees, which plaintiff did. Notice of that motion was reduced to writing, signed by the judge and accepted in writing by the defendant. On 2 December 1954 all the parties, with counsel, appeared before the court pursuant to the new motion. Defendant objected to the hearing on the ground that notice was without authority of law and therefore void. The objection was overruled and defendant excepted. On the facts found, defendant was ordered to pay $25 weekly for support of plaintiff and her infant child and the additional sum of $50 for counsel fees. Defendant excepted and appealed. He argued that the order appealed from was void because it was entered while the provious order of 18 May was in force. The Court in Barnwell stated:
The order was affirmed after modification to declare the order of 18 May a nullity.
In the case at bar both defendant and his counsel attended the first hearing. Notice was given at the first hearing of the further opportunity to be heard the next week and, since the record is not clear, it may be inferred from the order that counsel for defendant was present at the second hearing. The only order entered to this date was signed the day after the second hearing, of which defendant had sufficient notice. The order in question was properly entered. Judge McConnell's notice of a further hearing, and defendant's counsel's subsequent attendance, was more than sufficient notice to enable defendant to present any further evidence he desired.
Defendant's assignment of error No. 3 is addressed to the refusal of the court to hear the testimony of the four minor children, who were tendered by defendant.
Counsel for defendant twice requested the court to hear the testimony of the children and the court refused both times. This was error. The case of Spears v. Snell, 74 N.C. 210 (1876), established the right for a child to have his testimony heard. The Supreme Court said:
The Spears case was cited with approval in In re Gibbons, 247 N.C. 273, 101 S.E.2d 16 (1957). In...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State v. Roberts, 6912SC444
-
Wolfe v. Wolfe
...custody. In re Peal, 54 N.C.App. 564, 284 S.E.2d 347, rev'd on other grounds, 305 N.C. 640, 290 S.E.2d 664 (1981), Kearns v. Kearns, 6 N.C.App. 319, 170 S.E.2d 132 (1969), overruled on other grounds, 55 N.C.App. 250, 285 S.E.2d 281 (1981). The record clearly shows that the trial court in th......
-
Williams v. Williams
...and provision is also made for support of minor children, the order must separately state and identify each allowance. Kearns v. Kearns, 6 N.C.App. 319, 170 S.E.2d 132; G.S. § 50--16.7(a); G.S. § The judgment contains sufficient findings of fact to support the court's award to plaintiff of ......
-
Mintz v. Mintz, 825DC1070
...choice is not absolute or controlling. See Clark v. Clark, 294 N.C. 554, 576-77, 243 S.E.2d 129, 142 (1978); Kearns v. Kearns, 6 N.C.App. 319, 325, 170 S.E.2d 132, 136 (1969); 3 R. Lee, N.C. Family Law § 224 (4th ed. 1981). As to what age is the age of discretion, we feel that the better st......