Michael v. Michael
| Decision Date | 19 November 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 8522DC223,8522DC223 |
| Citation | 336 S.E.2d 414,77 N.C.App. 841 |
| Parties | Paul E. MICHAEL v. Phyllis Ray MICHAEL. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Randolph and Tamer by Clyde C. Randolph, Jr., and Rebekah L. Randolph, Winston-Salem, for plaintiff, appellant.
Wilson, Degraw, Johnson & Miller by Dan S. Johnson, Winston-Salem, for defendant, appellee.
This proceeding commenced when plaintiff husband filed a complaint seeking a divorce from bed and board, and defendant wife filed an answer and counterclaim seeking divorce from bed and board, alimony pendente lite, custody of their two children, child support, and attorney fees. Judgment was entered on 15 April 1983 wherein the trial judge made findings of fact and conclusions of law, which are summarized as follows:
That plaintiff is the supporting spouse as defined in G.S. 50-16.1(4) and defendant is the dependent spouse as defined in G.S. 50-16.1(3); that plaintiff's reasonable monthly expenses are $500.00; that $1,200.00 per month is a reasonable amount of child support considering the incomes, estate and expenses of the parties; that $600.00 per month alimony pendente lite is reasonable considering the incomes, estate and expenses of the parties; that plaintiff is to maintain the mortgage payments on their house in the amount of $1,279.29 per month; that plaintiff's income in 1980 was in excess of $83,000.00; that plaintiff's income in 1981 was in excess of $45,000.00 that plaintiff filed a financial statement with Southern National Bank showing total assets of $567,500.00, and a salary and commission of $75,000.00 for 1982; that plaintiff ceased operating his business in December 1982 and did not seek additional employment until February 1983.
On 13 June 1983 plaintiff was ordered to appear and show cause as to why he should not be held in contempt of court for willful failure to pay defendant pursuant to the order entered on 6 April 1983. Plaintiff was subsequently found in civil contempt. On 28 February 1984 a second order to show cause was filed, and plaintiff was found in civil contempt again.
On 17 October 1984, the trial court conducted a hearing upon a third motion to show cause. After hearing evidence the court made findings of fact and concluded that plaintiff was in criminal contempt for his failure to comply with the previous orders of the court. Plaintiff was ordered imprisoned in the Davie County Jail for thirty days. From this order of the District Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Wendorf
...superior court to hear appeals from orders in the district court holding a person in criminal contempt[,]" Michael v. Michael , 77 N.C. App. 841, 843, 336 S.E.2d 414, 415 (1985). Still, "[t]he jurisdiction of the superior court on appeal from a conviction in district court is derivative." S......
-
Reynolds v. Reynolds, COA00-383.
...is by hearing de novo before a superior court judge"), which lacks jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, see Michael v. Michael, 77 N.C.App. 841, 843, 336 S.E.2d 414, 415 (1985), cert. denied, 316 N.C. 195, 341 S.E.2d 577 (1986) (G.S. § 5A-17 "vests exclusive jurisdiction in the superior co......
-
Summerville v. Summerville, COA17-690
...the superior court to hear appeals from orders in the district court holding a person in criminal contempt." Michael v. Michael , 77 N.C. App. 841, 843, 336 S.E.2d 414, 415 (1985), disc. review denied , 316 N.C. 195, 341 S.E.2d 577 (1986). Thus, "in criminal contempt matters, appeal is from......
-
Key v. Key
...has exclusive jurisdiction to hear the appeal of an adjudication of criminal contempt by the district court. Michael v. Michael,77 N.C.App. 841, 84243, 336 S.E.2d 414, 415 (1985), disc. review denied,316 N.C. 195, 341 S.E.2d 577 (1986). Accordingly, we dismiss this portion of Defendant's ap......