{
  "id": 8553397,
  "name": "JAMES GARNER v. BEULAH B. GARNER",
  "name_abbreviation": "Garner v. Garner",
  "decision_date": "1970-12-30",
  "docket_number": "No. 708DC517",
  "first_page": "286",
  "last_page": "287",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "10 N.C. App. 286"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 178,
    "char_count": 2835,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.512,
    "sha256": "85ac7099bf804ffaeea7aa6b35c5cf57fe50180cb59905d468046af6d36c2899",
    "simhash": "1:0d4b2729e6c3e968",
    "word_count": 432
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:51:53.441044+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge Mallard and Judge Graham concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "JAMES GARNER v. BEULAH B. GARNER"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PARKER, Judge.\nAppellant\u2019s sole assignment of error is directed to the allowance of plaintiff\u2019s motion for a directed verdict dismissing her counterclaim for alimony. The assignment is well taken. Review of the record reveals there was sufficient substantial evidence to permit a jury to find (1) that plaintiff is a \u201csupporting spouse\u201d and defendant is a \u201cdependent spouse\u201d as defined in G.S. 50-16.1, and (2) that plaintiff has abandoned defendant and has willfully failed to provide her with necessary subsistence according to his means and condition so as to render her condition intolerable and her life burdensome. These permissible findings would support an'award of alimony. G.S. 50-16.2. The result is that the judgment dismissing plaintiff\u2019s action for divorce is affirmed; and the judgment dismissing defendant\u2019s counterclaim is\nReversed.\nChief Judge Mallard and Judge Graham concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PARKER, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "No counsel for plaintiff appellee.",
      "Dees, Dees, Smith & Powell by Tommy W. Jarrett for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JAMES GARNER v. BEULAH B. GARNER\nNo. 708DC517\n(Filed 30 December 1970)\nDivorce and Alimony \u00a7 16\u2014 counterclaim for alimony \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nThe trial court erred in the allowance of plaintiff husband\u2019s motion for a directed verdict dismissing defendant wife\u2019s counterclaim for alimony where there was substantial evidence to permit the jury to find (1) that plaintiff is a \u201csupporting spouse\u201d and defendant is a \u201cdependent spouse\u201d as defined in G.S. 50-16.1, and (2) that plaintiff has abandoned defendant and has wilfully failed to provide her with necessary subsistence according to his means and condition so as to render her condition intolerable and her life burdensome. G.S. 50-16.2.\nAppeal by defendant from Hardy, District Judge, April 1970 Session of Wayne District Court.\nPlaintiff husband filed complaint seeking an absolute divorce on the grounds of one year\u2019s separation. Defendant wife filed answer denying the separation, and in a further answer and counterclaim alleged that plaintiff had abandoned her and was living in adultery, that he earned a substantial income but failed and refused to furnish her with adequate support, and that she was unable to work because of illness. She prayed for alimony, alimony pendente lite, and counsel fees. An order was entered awarding defendant alimony pendente lite and counsel fees.\nAt the conclusion of all of the evidence, plaintiff\u2019s motion for a directed verdict dismissing defendant\u2019s counterclaim was allowed. The jury answered issues finding that plaintiff and defendant had not lived continuously separate and apart from each other for one year next preceding filing of the complaint. Judgment was entered dismissing plaintiff\u2019s action for divorce and defendant\u2019s counterclaim for alimony and vacating the order for alimony pendente lite. Defendant appealed.\nNo counsel for plaintiff appellee.\nDees, Dees, Smith & Powell by Tommy W. Jarrett for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0286-01",
  "first_page_order": 310,
  "last_page_order": 311
}