Tate v. Tate

• Decision Date: 18 November 1970
• Docket Number: No. 7026DC466,7026DC466
• Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
• Parties: Joanne Mirris TATE v. Clarence Garren TATE, Jr.

Page 455

177 S.E.2d 455

9 N.C.App. 681

Joanne Mirris TATE v. Clarence Garren TATE, Jr.

No. 7026DC466.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Nov. 18, 1970.

Hamel & Cannon, by Thomas R. Cannon, Charlotte, for plaintiff appellant.

Richard A. Cohan, Charlotte, for defendant appellee.

CAMPBELL, Judge.

The record does not reveal upon which of defendant's two grounds the trial judge dismissed the complaint. However, we will deal only with the question of venue as it is determinative. In fact it is not only venue but actually jurisdiction. Plaintiff relies heavily, in her brief, upon G.S. § 50--13.5(f) and Professor Lee's comments on that statute in 3 Lee, North Carolina Family Law, § 222, (Supp.1968). However, a close reading of the statute and Professor Lee's comments indicate that the statute does not apply in a situation such as we have here. The statute provides:

'(f) Venue.--An action or proceeding in the courts of this State for custody and support of a minor child may be maintained in the county where the child resides or is physically present or in a county where a parent resides, except as hereinafter provided. If an action for annulment, for divorce, either absolute or from bed and board, or for alimony without divorce has been previously instituted in this State, until there has been a final judgment in such case, any action or proceeding for custody and support of the minor children of the marriage shall be joined with such action or be by motion in the cause in such action. If an action or proceeding for the custody and support of a minor child has been instituted and an action for annulment or for divorce, either absolute or from bed and board, or for alimony without divorce is subsequently instituted in the same or another county the court having jurisdiction of the prior action or proceeding may, in its discretion direct that the action or proceeding for custody and support of a minor child be consolidated with such subsequent action, and in the event consolidation is ordered, shall determine in which court such consolidated action or proceeding shall be heard.'

This statute contemplates only the institution of an action for custody and support. It does not affect the situation that we have here where custody and support have already been determined and one of the parties seeks a modification of the order establishing custody and support. In such a case, the court first obtaining jurisdiction retains jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts and is the only proper court to bring an action for the modification of an order establishing custody and support. In Crosby v. Crosby, 272 N.C. 235, 158 S.E.2d...