Pieper v. Pieper
| Decision Date | 31 May 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 8726DC1110,8726DC1110 |
| Citation | 90 N.C.App. 405,368 S.E.2d 422 |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Loris M. PIEPER, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Gary L. PIEPER, Respondent/Appellee. |
Atty. Gen. Lacy H. Thornburg by Asst. Atty. Gen., T. Byron Smith, Raleigh, for petitioner/appellant.
Petree Stockton & Robinson by Peter E. Lane and David B. Hamilton, Charlotte, for respondent/appellee.
The question is whether petitioner may use URESA as a vehicle to enforce in our State a foreign support decree which could not have been rendered under North Carolina law. The district court made, inter alia, the following findings of fact:
1. Mr. Pieper has been a resident of North Carolina since 1975.
2. Mr. and Mrs. Pieper entered no agreement for the payment of support for their son beyond the age of eighteen years.
3. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 52A-8 provides in part as follows: "Duties of support applicable under this Chapter are those imposed or imposable under the laws of any state where the obligor was present during the period or any part of the period for which support is sought."
4. Pursuant to N.C.Gen.Stat. § 50-13.4(c), payments ordered for the support of a child terminate when the child reaches the age of eighteen, with two exceptions which are inapplicable in this case.
Based on the facts found the district court concluded as follows:
1. Pursuant to N.C.Gen.Stat. § 52A-8, the duties of support of Mr. Pieper in this action are those imposed or impossible under the laws of North Carolina.
2. The duties of support which Mrs. Pieper seeks to enforce in this action are not imposable and cannot be imposed under the laws of North Carolina, and the Iowa foreign support orders which have been registered cannot be enforced by this Court.
3. Because the duties of support sought to be enforced by Mrs. Pieper in this action cannot be enforced by this Court, this action should be dismissed.
We agree with the conclusions of the trial court, and we therefore affirm the dismissal of petitioner's enforcement action.
N.C.Gen.Stat. § 52A-8 clearly provides that it is the law of the state where the obligor is found, the "responding state," that applies in actions under URESA. See, e.g., 2 R. E. Lee, North Carolina Family Law § 169 at 340 (4th ed. 1980); see also, W.J. Brockelbank and F. Infausto, Interstate Enforcement of Family Support 30-36 (2d ed. 1971). In the absence of an enforceable contract, North Carolina courts are without authority to order child support for a child who has attained the age of majority, Bridges v. Bridges, 85 N.C.App. 524, 355 S.E.2d 230 (1987), with two exceptions which are not applicable in this case. In North Carolina a child reaches his majority at age eighteen. N.C.Gen.Stat. § 48A-2. Thus, petitioner's Iowa supplemental decree imposes upon respondent a support duty not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cavallari v. Martin
...years of age because obligor lived in Delaware and Delaware law terminates child support at eighteen); Pieper v. Pieper, 90 N.C.App. 405, 368 S.E.2d 422, 424 (App.),aff'd,323 N.C. 617, 374 S.E.2d 275, 276 (1988) (out-of-state order providing support until child reaches twenty-two years of a......
-
Pieper v. Pieper
...Carolina Court of Appeals and to the North Carolina Supreme Court, both of which affirmed the trial court's action. Pieper v. Pieper, 90 N.C.App. 405, 368 S.E.2d 422 aff'd, 323 N.C. 617, 374 S.E.2d 275 (1988) (hereinafter Pieper I Having failed to obtain relief in this State under URESA to ......
-
Welsher v. Rager
...applied in interpreting and/or enforcing the support order be that of the state in which enforcement was sought. See Pieper v. Pieper, 90 N.C.App. 405, 368 S.E.2d 422 (holding that URESA could not be used to enforce a foreign support order requiring support until age 22 since such an order ......
-
Haker-Volkening v. Haker
...registration of the Swiss order pursuant to UIFSA. Accordingly, the issue of comity is not properly before us. See Pieper v. Pieper, 90 N.C.App. 405, 407, 368 S.E.2d 422, 424,aff'd,323 N.C. 617, 374 S.E.2d 275 (1988) (holding that issue of whether foreign support order was enforceable throu......