Rowe v. Rowe
| Decision Date | 17 November 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. COA97-1574.,COA97-1574. |
| Citation | 507 S.E.2d 317,131 NC App. 409 |
| Parties | Gwendolyn S. ROWE, Plaintiff, v. O. Reagan ROWE, Defendant. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
James, McElroy & Diehl, P.A. by G. Russell Kornegay, III and Katherine Line Thompson Kelly, Charlotte, for plaintiff-appellee. Casstevens, Hanner, Gunter & Conrad, P.A. by Nelson M. Casstevens, Jr. and Teresa L. Conrad, Charlotte, for defendant-appellant.
Plaintiff and defendant were married on 18 June 1950 and separated on 16 June 1996. On 21 October 1996, plaintiff filed a complaint seeking postseparation support, alimony, attorneys' fees, and equitable distribution. A hearing was held for determination of postseparation support on 9 and 10 June 1997. At the hearings, plaintiff established monthly financial needs and expenses of approximately $5,000. Plaintiff offered the affidavit of Thomas Randolph Witt, a certified public accountant who professed to be knowledgeable of the tax laws, and he determined that plaintiff would need $8,300 per month as postseparation support to meet her tax liability.
On 25 July 1997, the trial court ruled that plaintiff's reasonable needs and expenses per month were $4,950.81 rounded up to $5,000, and after taking into consideration the tax consequences of postseparation support, ordered defendant to pay $8,300 per month until the equitable distribution issues were resolved.
On 20 August 1997, defendant filed a motion pursuant to Rule 60 for relief from the order and also filed a notice of appeal. In his motion, defendant alleged that the trial court erred in determining that a monthly payment of $8,300 was necessary in order to meet plaintiff's reasonable monthly needs and expenses of $5,000. The trial court denied defendant's motion.
Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it ordered the payment of postseparation support that was in excess of plaintiff's needs because her tax liability was incorrectly calculated. Plaintiff contends that an order awarding postseparation support is interlocutory and not immediately appealable.
An order is interlocutory if it is made during the pendency of an action and does not dispose of the case but leaves further matters to be judicially determined between the parties at the trial court level. Veazey v. City of Durham, 231 N.C. 357, 362, 57 S.E.2d 377, 381, reh'g denied, 232 N.C. 744, 59 S.E.2d 429 (1950). However, an interlocutory order may be appealed by one of two avenues. First, an appeal is permitted if there is an order or judgment which is final as to some but not all of the claims or parties and the trial court certifies the case for appeal pursuant to N.C.Gen.Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 54(b). N.C. Dept. of Transportation v. Page, 119 N.C.App. 730, 734, 460 S.E.2d 332, 334 (1995). Second, an appeal is permitted if it affects a substantial right that will be lost if not reviewed immediately. Id.
Prior to 1995, there was no action in North Carolina for "postseparation support" instead the statute defined support prior to a divorce as "alimony pendente lite." In 1981, this Court held that alimony pendente lite awards were interlocutory and were not immediately appealable because they did not affect a substantial right. Stephenson v. Stephenson, 55 N.C.App. 250, 285 S.E.2d 281 (1981). Prior to Stephenson, this Court had allowed alimony pendente lite awards to be immediately appealable. However, we noted that due to the increase in the number of appeals to be heard by this Court, a final hearing frequently could be held in the trial court before the case even reached this Court. Id. at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stewart v. Stewart, No. COA99-1482.
...of property not specifically identified in the Agreement), it is interlocutory and therefore not appealable. See Rowe v. Rowe, 131 N.C.App. 409, 410, 507 S.E.2d 317, 318 (1998). However, we hold that because the trial court's order completely disposed of the gravamen of the issues raised, t......
-
Honeycutt v. Honeycutt
...259; Stafford v. Stafford, 133 N.C.App. 163, 515 S.E.2d 43, aff'd per curiam, 351 N.C. 94, 520 S.E.2d 785 (1999); Rowe v. Rowe, 131 N.C.App. 409, 507 S.E.2d 317 (1998); Hunter v. Hunter, 126 N.C.App. 705, 486 S.E.2d 244 (1997). Moreover, the majority's decision will not obviate the need for......
-
Wells v. Wells
...enter notice of appeal upon entry of the trial court's 12 January 1996 order precludes our consideration thereof. In Rowe v. Rowe, ___ N.C.App. ___, 507 S.E.2d 317 (1998), this Court held the order of a trial court granting PSS was interlocutory and not subject to immediate Postseparation s......
-
Embler v. Embler
...absolute divorce; held not to affect substantial right where date relevant only to equitable distribution claim); Rowe v. Rowe, 131 N.C.App. 409, 507 S.E.2d 317 (1998) (orders awarding postseparation support not immediately appealable); Hunter v. Hunter, 126 N.C.App. 705, 486 S.E.2d 244 (19......