{
  "id": 8523725,
  "name": "DEBORAH BRIGGS FREEMAN (now Watson), Plaintiff v. SAMMY GRAY FREEMAN, Defendant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Freeman v. Freeman",
  "decision_date": "1991-08-20",
  "docket_number": "No. 9121DC388",
  "first_page": "801",
  "last_page": "803",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "103 N.C. App. 801"
    }
  ],
  "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": [
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1-52",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(2)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "388 S.E.2d 460",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "325 N.C. 709",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2489154,
        2490532,
        2489640,
        2489906,
        2487766
      ],
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/325/0709-04",
        "/nc/325/0709-01",
        "/nc/325/0709-02",
        "/nc/325/0709-03",
        "/nc/325/0709-05"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "381 S.E.2d 882",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "95 N.C. App. 14",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8519327
      ],
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/95/0014-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "225 S.E.2d 816",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "290 N.C. 98",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560631
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/290/0098-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "264 S.E.2d 816",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "46 N.C. App. 182",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8549692
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/46/0182-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "355 S.E.2d 230",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 N.C. App. 524",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        12170112
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/85/0524-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "366 S.E.2d 249",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "89 N.C. App. 458",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8522763
      ],
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/89/0458-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 5043.4",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(a)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 329,
    "char_count": 4855,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.719,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.71785594556934e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3587566302128039
    },
    "sha256": "739442e7ae4dd95c0acf732b55415a2d83194e8ad44ae01af1d044b503dc9a49",
    "simhash": "1:16ecd0a2d01ec1fe",
    "word_count": 813
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:27:13.805826+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges COZORT and LEWIS concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "DEBORAH BRIGGS FREEMAN (now Watson), Plaintiff v. SAMMY GRAY FREEMAN, Defendant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HEDRICK, Chief Judge.\nThe sole issue raised on appeal is whether the court erred in determining that it had no jurisdiction to hear the issue of child support. Defendant contends that because the issue had been properly raised and was pending before the court, it was error to dismiss the claim for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff argues that since the child became emancipated prior to the entry of an order or judgment awarding support or custody, the court lost its authority to enter such an award.\nWe first note that the trial court is incorrect in its presumption that because the issue of custody has become moot, it may not address the issue of support. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 5043.4(a) does not specifically require a judicial determination of custody before a person or agency can bring an action for support. Craig v. Kelley, 89 N.C. App. 458, 366 S.E.2d 249 (1988). What remains for this Court to determine is whether defendant waived his right to support by failing to schedule notice of a hearing on the issue prior to the child\u2019s emancipation. We hold he has not.\nIt is well accepted in North Carolina that the courts have no authority to order child support for a child who has reached the age of majority and has become emancipated. See Bridges v. Bridges, 85 N.C. App. 524, 355 S.E.2d 230 (1987). However, the limitations placed upon the court once a child reaches an age of majority concern the authority of the State to impose support obligations beyond that time. Until the child reaches the age of emancipation under North Carolina law each parent is equally obligated to support that child. Cogdell v. Johnson, 46 N.C. App. 182, 264 S.E.2d 816 (1980). A parent\u2019s obligation to support his child arises when the child is born, not when the courts order a specific amount to be paid. Tidwell v. Booker, 290 N.C. 98, 225 S.E.2d 816 (1976). Clearly, as a parent\u2019s past obligations of support do not disappear simply because the child has turned eighteen years of age, neither does the custodial spouse\u2019s right to seek reimbursement for past support expenditures. See Napowsa v. Langston, 95 N.C. App. 14, 381 S.E.2d 882, disc. review denied, 325 N.C. 709, 388 S.E.2d 460 (1989). The sole limitation on defendant\u2019s right to reimbursement for documented past support expenditures is imposed by N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1-52(2) which limits recovery to those expenditures incurred within three years before the date the action for support is filed.\nFor these reasons, we find the trial court erred in holding it lacked jurisdiction to hear a motion for child support in this case. We reverse the order dismissing the above action and we remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.\nReversed and remanded.\nJudges COZORT and LEWIS concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HEDRICK, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Morrow, Alexander, Task, Long & Black, by Charles J. Alexander, II, and Ronald B. Black, for plaintiff, appellee.",
      "Wilson, Biesecker, Tripp & Sink, by Joe E. Biesecker, for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "DEBORAH BRIGGS FREEMAN (now Watson), Plaintiff v. SAMMY GRAY FREEMAN, Defendant\nNo. 9121DC388\n(Filed 20 August 1991)\nParent and Child \u00a7 7.2 (NCI3d)\u2014 emancipation of child \u2014 jurisdiction to award past child support\nThe trial court did not lack jurisdiction to hear a motion for past child support because the child had become emancipated and the custody issue had become moot. Nor did defendant father waive his right to seek reimbursement for past child support expenditures by failing to schedule notice of a hearing on the issue prior to the child\u2019s emancipation. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1-52(2).\nAm Jur 2d, Parent and Child \u00a7\u00a7 69, 80.\nAPPEAL by defendant from Alexander (Abner), Judge. Order entered 1 February 1991 in District Court, FORSYTH County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 6 August 1991.\nOn 14 August 1987 plaintiff filed a complaint seeking absolute divorce from defendant and an equitable distribution of the marital property. In his answer, filed on 14 October 1987, defendant requested child custody and support. The divorce was granted on 21 October 1987. The equitable distribution hearing was held on 8 November 1990, where defendant asked for accumulated child support. The judge at the equitable distribution hearing refused to address the issue of child support. Notice was sent by defendant to plaintiff of a hearing on the issue of child support to be held on 16 November 1990. Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment, alleging the child had turned eighteen on 11 May 1990 and graduated from high school in June 1990. By order entered 1 February 1991 the trial court dismissed defendant\u2019s claim for child support stating that due to the emancipation of the said child \u201cthis Court is divested of any authority to determine the child\u2019s custody and consequently cannot enter into a determination as to child support.\u201d Defendant appeals that order.\nMorrow, Alexander, Task, Long & Black, by Charles J. Alexander, II, and Ronald B. Black, for plaintiff, appellee.\nWilson, Biesecker, Tripp & Sink, by Joe E. Biesecker, for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0801-01",
  "first_page_order": 831,
  "last_page_order": 833
}