Redfern v. Redfern, 8026DC94
| Docket Nº | No. 8026DC94 |
| Citation | 49 N.C.App. 94, 270 S.E.2d 606 |
| Case Date | October 07, 1980 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US) |
Page 606
v.
Charles H. REDFERN.
R. Kent Brown, Charlotte, for plaintiff-appellee.
Lindsey, Schrimsher, Erwin, Bernhardt & Hewitt by Lawrence W. Hewitt, Charlotte, for defendant-appellant.
HILL, Judge.
Plaintiff appellee filed a motion with this Court on 2 June 1980 requesting the matter be remanded to the Mecklenburg County Superior Court for an examination of whether plaintiff voluntarily sought to dismiss this action in the superior court after appeal had been perfected in this Court. Appeal having been made to this Court, this Court has jurisdiction of the matter. No attempt by plaintiff appellee to dismiss the action can be effective. We proceed to deal with the appeal on its merits.
Defendant contends the court erred in its finding of fact that the plaintiff and defendant were legally married to each other and, therefore erred in awarding alimony pendente lite based upon said void marriage.
Defendant testified that prior to his purported marriage to plaintiff he had appeared
Page 608
at a hearing in the Mecklenburg County District Court on 18 December 1978 for the purpose of obtaining a divorce from Katie R. Redfern. Defendant left the courtroom having been advised that he was in fact divorced. Thereafter, plaintiff and defendant went through a marriage ceremony on 23 December 1978.The judgment roll for Mecklenburg County for 18 December 1978 reveals the divorce case was "For Judgment," indicating the trial was concluded on that date. The judgment docket contains a judgment entitled "Charles H. Redfern v. Katie R. Redfern, 78CVD9072," which is dated 8 February 1979, but which recites that the matter came on for hearing on 18 December 1978. The docket thereafter sets out the requisite finding of fact on which to base a divorce.
[49 N.C.App. 96] Defendant contends the date the divorce judgment was signed is controlling and that judgment was not entered nunc pro tunc; that his marriage to plaintiff is void; and that the award of alimony to plaintiff and attorney fees is error.
Defendant cites G.S. 51-3, which states:
All marriages ... between persons either of whom has a husband or wife living at the time of such marriage ... shall be void.
Defendant cites numerous cases holding that a marriage between parties, either of whom has a living spouse at the time of the purported marriage, is void ab initio. Cunningham v. Brigman, 263 N.C. 208, 139 S.E.2d 353 (1964); Pridgen v. Pridgen, 203 N.C. 533, 166 S.E. 591 (1932). Such a marriage being a nullity, it may be attacked collaterally at any time, and no legal rights flow from it. Ivery v. Ivery, 258 N.C. 721, 129 S.E.2d 457 (1963).
We find no North Carolina cases on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pickard v. Pickard, COA05-426.
...marriages have thus far been declared absolutely void. 1 R. Lee, North Carolina Family Law § 18 (4th ed.1979); Redfern v. Redfern, 49 N.C.App. 94, 270 S.E.2d 606 (1980). All other marriages are voidable." Fulton v. Vickery, 73 N.C.App. 382, 387, 326 S.E.2d 354, 358, cert. denied, 313 N.C. 5......
-
Mayer v. Mayer, 8221DC668
...doctrine is especially compelling. North Carolina courts have recognized the doctrine of equitable estoppel in Redfern v. Redfern, 49 N.C.App. 94, 270 S.E.2d 606 (1980), and McIntyre v. McIntyre, 211 N.C. 698, 191 S.E. 507 (1937). In Redfern, the defendant attempted to avoid paying alimony ......
-
In re Estate of Anderson, COA01-143.
...position inconsistent with such previous negligence. Lane v. Lane, 115 N.C.App. 446, 452, 445 S.E.2d 70, 73 (citing Redfern v. Redfern, 49 N.C.App. 94, 97, 270 S.E.2d 606, 608-09 (1980)) (plaintiff estopped from challenging validity of second marriage where 559 S.E.2d 225 she was culpably n......
-
Fulton v. Vickery, 8415SC575
...marriages have thus far been declared absolutely void. 1 R. Lee, North Carolina Family Law Sec. 18 (4th ed. 1979); Redfern v. Redfern, 49 N.C.App. 94, 270 S.E.2d 606 (1980). All other marriages are voidable. See, e.g., Ivery v. Ivery, 258 N.C. 721, 129 S.E.2d 457 (1963) (despite statutory l......