Pinner v. Pinner
| Decision Date | 04 May 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 762DC833,762DC833 |
| Citation | 234 S.E.2d 633,33 N.C.App. 204 |
| Parties | Marjorie J. PINNER v. Richard S. PINNER, Jr. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Blount, Crisp & Grantmyre by Nelson B. Crisp, Greenville, for plaintiff-appellee.
McMullan & Knott by Lee E. Knott, Jr., Washington, for defendant-appellant.
The sole issue presented upon appeal is whether jurisdiction over the person or property of a defendant-obligor is necessary in order to register a foreign support order under G.S. 52A-29.
G.S. Ch. 52A, the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (hereinafter URESA), was first enacted in 1951, and was re-enacted with significant amendments in 1975. S.L.1951, c. 317, s. 1; S.L.1975, c. 656, s. 1. As reenacted, G.S. Ch. 52A very substantially conforms to the 1968 revision of URESA, which included a new procedure for the registration of foreign support orders. See 9C Uniform Laws Annotated, pp. 805-883 (1973). The provisions in the 1968 revision providing for the registration of foreign support orders have been adopted in twenty-four states, and were first enacted in North Carolina in 1975 as G.S. 52A-26 to G.S. 52A-30. 9C Uniform Laws Annotated, p. 383 (Supp.1976). A review of the Uniform Laws Annotated reveals that there are no cases in any of the twenty-four states interpreting the sections providing for registration of foreign support orders.
G.S. 52A-30(b) provides that G.S. 52A-30(c) concerns the "hearing to enforce the registered support order". (Emphasis added.)
We conclude that these provisions establish a two-step procedure: (1) registration of the order, and if required, a hearing on whether to vacate the registration or grant the "obligor" other relief; and (2) enforcement of the order. Under G.S. 52A-29, the obligee has the option to merely register the order or to register and enforce simultaneously. C. Kelso, Enforcement of Support, 43 Minn.L.Rev. 875, 882-884 (1959). This conclusion is supported by the definitions of "obligor" and "obligee". G.S. 52A-3(6) defines an obligee in pertinent part as "a person . . . that has commenced a proceeding for enforcement of an alleged duty of support or for registration of a support order. . . ." (Emphasis added.) G.S. 52A-3(7) defines an obligor in pertinent part as "a person . . . against whom a proceeding for the enforcement of a duty of support or registration of a support order is commenced." (Emphasis added.)
Having concluded that registration and enforcement are separate procedures, we consider whether jurisdiction over the person or property of the obligor is necessary for valid registration. Jurisdiction is the power of the court to decide a matter in controversy, and presupposes the existence of a duly constituted court with control over the subject matter and the parties. Waters v. McBee, 244 N.C. 540, 94 S.E.2d 640 (1956). A judgment or order against a defendant who is not in court in some way sanctioned by law is void for want of jurisdiction. Koob v. Koob, 283 N.C. 129, 195 S.E.2d 552 (1973); Richards v. Nationwide Homes, 263 N.C. 295, 139 S.E.2d 645 (1965). In the present case we are not concerned with the limited judicial power of the Clerk of Court to render judgments or issue orders. See 3 Strong, N.C.Index, Clerks of Court § 1 (3d ed. 1976). Rather we are here concerned with the duty of the clerk to register a foreign judgment properly presented under G.S. 52A-29. "Unless otherwise specifically authorized by statute, the duty of the clerk of court to file papers presented to him is purely ministerial and he may not refuse to perform such duty except upon order of the court." 15A Am.Jur.2d, Clerks of Court § 23, p. 158 (1976). The mere registration of a foreign support order presented by the obligee under G.S. 52A-29 is a ministerial duty of the clerk. By that act no court or agency of the state is purporting to exercise power over the obligor or his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Livingston v. Naylor
...1177, 1185, 208 Cal.Rptr. 123, 127 (1984); Wilson v. Ransom, 233 Neb. 427, 434, 446 N.W.2d 6, 10-11 (1989); Pinner v. Pinner, 33 N.C.App. 204, 207, 234 S.E.2d 633, 636 (1977); Davanis v. Davanis, 132 Wis.2d 318, 327, 392 N.W.2d 108, 112 (Wis.App.1986). But cf. Williamson v. Williamson, 247 ......
-
Helmick v. Helmick
...residence, for example a state where respondent owns assets that can be levied on for enforcement. See, e.g., Pinner v. Pinner, 33 N.C.App. 204, 234 S.E.2d 633 (1977) (husband and wife divorced in Florida, husband moved to Pennsylvania, wife moved to North Carolina, wife registered Florida ......
-
Hudgins v. Hudgins, 7-91-21
...Gingold (1984), 161 Cal.App.3d 1177, 208 Cal.Rptr. 123; Fleming v. Fleming (1980), 49 N.C.App. 345, 271 S.E.2d 584; Pinner v. Pinner (1977), 33 N.C.App. 204, 234 S.E.2d 633. Pursuant to R.C. 3115.32(G), upon proper registration the foreign state's order essentially becomes an Ohio order, an......
-
Gerald v. Hudgins Nka Gerald D. Hudgins, 92-LW-3360
... ... Civ ... App. 1980), 601 S.W.2d 72; O'Halloran v ... O'Halloran (Tex. Civ. App. 1979), 580 S.W.2d 870; ... Pinner v. Pinner (1977), 33 N.C. App. 204, 234 ... S.E.2d 633; Sabrina D. v. Thomas W ... (1981), 110 ... Misc. 2d 796, 443 N.Y.S.2d 111 ... ...