{
  "id": 11889739,
  "name": "TERRY BANNER, Plaintiff v. JERRY EARL HATCHER, Defendant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Banner v. Hatcher",
  "decision_date": "1996-11-05",
  "docket_number": "No. COA96-7",
  "first_page": "439",
  "last_page": "442",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "124 N.C. App. 439"
    }
  ],
  "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": "296 S.E.2d 822",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "823"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "59 N.C. App. 537",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8526898
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "538-39"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/59/0537-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "299 S.E.2d 777",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "780"
        },
        {
          "page": "780"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "60 N.C. App. 331",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8520808
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "335"
        },
        {
          "page": "335"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/60/0331-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "448 S.E.2d 857",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "858"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "116 N.C. App. 660",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8525365
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "661"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/116/0660-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "328 S.E.2d 871",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "872-73"
        },
        {
          "page": "872"
        },
        {
          "page": "873"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "74 N.C. App. 494",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8525110
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "496-97"
        },
        {
          "page": "496"
        },
        {
          "page": "497"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/74/0494-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "366 S.E.2d 249",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "250"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "89 N.C. App. 458",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8522763
      ],
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "459"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/89/0458-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "465 S.E.2d 313",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "316-17"
        },
        {
          "page": "317"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "121 N.C. App. 263",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11916655
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "268-70"
        },
        {
          "page": "269"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/121/0263-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "359 S.E.2d 812",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "813"
        },
        {
          "page": "813"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "87 N.C. App. 160",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8358024
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "162"
        },
        {
          "page": "162"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/87/0160-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "349 S.E.2d 859",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "318 N.C. 505",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4737417,
        4738602,
        4733422,
        4740368,
        4733653
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/318/0505-05",
        "/nc/318/0505-04",
        "/nc/318/0505-02",
        "/nc/318/0505-03",
        "/nc/318/0505-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "344 S.E.2d 806",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "807"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "81 N.C. App. 675",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8525073
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "676"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/81/0675-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "270 S.E.2d 431",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "433-34"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "301 N.C. 205",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8564716
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "209"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/301/0205-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "304 S.E.2d 636",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "637",
          "parenthetical": "citing Bailey v. Gooding, 301 N.C. 205, 209, 270 S.E.2d 431, 433-34 (1980)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "63 N.C. App. 387",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8525247
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "388",
          "parenthetical": "citing Bailey v. Gooding, 301 N.C. 205, 209, 270 S.E.2d 431, 433-34 (1980)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/63/0387-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 407,
    "char_count": 6709,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.749,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.354615806949642e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8749245612388985
    },
    "sha256": "60c6dc80985e2a72904a80f8245146a4a016431e9471fac73a862f35dd7fa803",
    "simhash": "1:4d29ee6e54a606b6",
    "word_count": 1101
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:03:33.335576+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges MARTIN, JOHN C., and SMITH concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "TERRY BANNER, Plaintiff v. JERRY EARL HATCHER, Defendant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "EAGLES, Judge.\nDefendant purports to appeal the trial court\u2019s grant of plaintiff\u2019s motion pursuant to Rule 60(b) to vacate and set aside the trial court\u2019s previous order of 26 January 1995. Although the issue is not raised by either party, we recognize that \u201c[a]ppeals from such orders must be dismissed as interlocutory.\u201d Braun v. Grundman, 63 N.C. App. 387, 388, 304 S.E.2d 636, 637 (1983) (citing Bailey v. Gooding, 301 N.C. 205, 209, 270 S.E.2d 431, 433-34 (1980)).\nThe trial court\u2019s order of 22 September 1995 setting aside judgment and granting a new trial is not an appealable final order. See, e.g., Dunlap v. Dunlap, 81 N.C. App. 675, 676, 344 S.E.2d 806, 807, disc. review denied, 318 N.C. 505, 349 S.E.2d 859 (1986). Our analysis is unchanged by the fact that the order set aside here was a child support order. As in other contexts, the trial court\u2019s order setting aside judgment here is interlocutory \u201cbecause further action by the trial court is necessary to settle and determine the entire controversy between the parties.\u201d First American Savings & Loan Assoc. v. Satterfield, 87 N.C. App. 160, 162, 359 S.E.2d 812, 813 (1987).\nThe sole issue before the trial court here is whether circumstances have changed sufficiently that a modification of child support is justified. That issue remains unresolved. In the child support context, an order setting child support is not a final order for purposes of appeal until no further action is necessary before the trial court upon the motion or pleading then being considered. See, e.g., Massey v. Massey, 121 N.C. App. 263, 268-70, 465 S.E.2d 313, 316-17 (1996); Craig v. Kelley, 89 N.C. App. 458, 459, 366 S.E.2d 249, 250 (1988); Coleman v. Coleman, 74 N.C. App. 494, 496-97, 328 S.E.2d 871, 872-73 (1985). Under this standard, an order providing for temporary child support is not an appealable final order, whereas an order providing for permanent child support until emancipation is an appealable final order even though permanent child support orders \u201cmay be modified subsequently upon a motion in the cause and a showing of change of circumstances as provided in G.S. 50-13.7.\u201d Massey, 121 N.C. App. at 269, 465 S.E.2d at 317 (quoting Coleman, 74 N.C. App. at 496, 328 S.E.2d at 872). We note that this is the same standard we apply when we review orders regarding alimony. Gillespie v. Gillespie, 116 N.C. App. 660, 661, 448 S.E.2d 857, 858 (1994).\nAs the trial court correctly noted in its order setting aside judgment, the child support order of 12 July 1993 remains in effect pending final resolution by the trial court of the question of whether there has been a substantial change of circumstances since 12 July 1993. Determining that the child support amount established in the 12 July 1993 order remains in effect is ultimately no different in result than expressly ordering defendant to pay temporary child support during the pendency of the litigation. As we have recognized, an order providing for temporary child support is interlocutory and not an immediately appealable final order. Coleman, 74 N.C. App. at 497, 328 S.E.2d at 873. Accordingly, because further action is necessary before the trial court, we conclude that plaintiffs appeal here is interlocutory. First American Savings & Loan, 87 N.C. App. at 162, 359 S.E.2d at 813.\nHaving determined that the trial court\u2019s order setting aside judgment and granting a new trial is interlocutory, we recognize that \u201c[i]nter!ocutory orders are immediately appealable only if they affect a substantial right and will work injury to the appellant if not corrected before an appeal from a final judgment.\u201d Id. \u201cA right is substantial only if it \u2018will clearly be lost or irremediably adversely affected if the order is not reviewable before final judgment.\u2019 \u201d Id. (quoting Blackwelder v. Dept. of Human Resources, 60 N.C. App. 331, 335, 299 S.E.2d 777, 780 (1983)). Here, allowing the trial court to proceed with rehearing will not cause appellant\u2019s rights to be clearly lost or irremediably affected. As we have recognized, the \u201cavoidance of a rehearing or trial is not a \u2018substantial right\u2019 entitling a party to an immediate appeal.\u201d Blackwelder, 60 N.C. App. at 335, 299 S.E.2d at 780.\nWe note also here that defendant has \u201cadequately preserved the question of the appropriateness of the trial court\u2019s order setting aside the judgment and granting anew [hearing].\u201d Deal Construction Co. v. Spainhour, 59 N.C. App. 537, 538-39, 296 S.E.2d 822, 823 (1982). Defendant may raise that question, if necessary, upon an appeal from the final order determining whether or not a change of circumstances has in fact occurred. Accordingly, defendants\u2019 appeal is dismissed.\nDismissed.\nJudges MARTIN, JOHN C., and SMITH concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "EAGLES, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Smith & Murphrey, by Steven D. Smith and John R. Combs, for plaintiff-appellee.",
      "D. Blake Yokley for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "TERRY BANNER, Plaintiff v. JERRY EARL HATCHER, Defendant\nNo. COA96-7\n(Filed 5 November 1996)\nAppeal and Error \u00a7 106 (NCI4th)\u2014 modification of child support \u2014 order setting aside judgment \u2014 no immediate appeal\nThe trial court\u2019s order setting aside a judgment modifying child support and granting a new trial on the issue of whether there had been a substantial change of circumstances was interlocutory, did not affect a substantial right, and was not immediately appealable.\nAm Jur 2d, Appellate Review \u00a7\u00a7 194 et seq.\nAppeal by defendant from order entered 22 September 1995 by Judge Roland H. Hayes in Forsyth County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 25 September 1996.\nPlaintiff and defendant are the parents of a minor child, Michael E. Banner, born out-of-wedlock on 1 March 1991. On 24 March 1992, the court entered approval of a voluntary support agreement ordering defendant to pay $302.00 in monthly child support. Because of a change in social security benefits received, this amount was reduced to $234.00 per month on 12 July 1993. Thereafter, on 15 November 1994, defendant filed a motion seeking another decrease in child support. After hearing, the trial court granted defendant\u2019s motion and reduced defendant\u2019s child support obligation to $143.00 per month. The trial court\u2019s order was entered on 26 January 1995 and plaintiff did not appeal.\nOn 7 March 1995, plaintiff through counsel filed a motion pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1), (2) and (6) to set aside the trial court\u2019s order of 26 January 1995 and pursuant to Rule 59(a) requesting a new hearing. On 22 September 1995, the trial court granted plaintiff\u2019s motion to set aside the order of 26 January 1995, granted plaintiff\u2019s motion for a new hearing, and reinstated the previous order obligating defendant to pay $234.00 per month in child support.\nDefendant appeals.\nSmith & Murphrey, by Steven D. Smith and John R. Combs, for plaintiff-appellee.\nD. Blake Yokley for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0439-01",
  "first_page_order": 477,
  "last_page_order": 480
}