{
  "id": 11796370,
  "name": "State of North Carolina, by and through its Carteret Child Support Enforcement Office, ex. rel. Samantha L. Horne, Plaintiff v. Richard Lee Horne, II, Defendant",
  "name_abbreviation": "State ex rel. Horne v. Horne",
  "decision_date": "1997-09-02",
  "docket_number": "No. COA97-38",
  "first_page": "387",
  "last_page": "390",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "127 N.C. App. 387"
    }
  ],
  "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": "473 S.E.2d 6",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "9",
          "parenthetical": "emphasis added"
        },
        {
          "page": "8"
        },
        {
          "page": "9"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "344 N.C. 166",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        867538
      ],
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "171",
          "parenthetical": "emphasis added"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/344/0166-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "432 S.E.2d 911",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "111 N.C. App. 613",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8523159
      ],
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/111/0613-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 50-13.4",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(c)"
        },
        {
          "page": "(c)"
        },
        {
          "page": "(c)"
        },
        {
          "page": "(c)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 393,
    "char_count": 8099,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.755,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.3942440478354754e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6433848073768007
    },
    "sha256": "371dbaa76046b532ed92253d0b4c2ee33a4a7aa6c0ae260201a3557a39ef2cfd",
    "simhash": "1:cbbad7c290ae8df5",
    "word_count": 1304
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:43:16.540119+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges WYNN and JOHN concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "State of North Carolina, by and through its Carteret Child Support Enforcement Office, ex. rel. Samantha L. Horne, Plaintiff v. Richard Lee Horne, II, Defendant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "SMITH, Judge.\nThe issue before this Court is whether the child support order contains sufficient findings of fact to support the trial court\u2019s decision to deviate the guidelines. Plaintiff argues, and we agree, it does not.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 50-13.4(c) (1995), which provides for deviation from the guidelines, states that\nupon request of any party, the Court shall hear evidence, and from the evidence, find the facts relating to the reasonable needs of the child for support and the relative ability of each parent to provide support. If, after considering the evidence, the Court finds by the greater weight of the evidence that the application of the guidelines would not meet or would exceed the reasonable needs of the child considering the relative ability of each parent to provide support or would be otherwise unjust or inappropriate the Court may vary from the guidelines.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 50-13.4(c) (1995). If the trial court determines deviation is warranted, it \u201cshall make findings of fact as to the criteria that justify varying from the guidelines and the basis for the amount ordered.\u201d Id.; Gowing v. Gowing, 111 N.C. App. 613, 432 S.E.2d 911 (1993).\nIn this case the trial court made the following pertinent findings of fact:\n23. . . . Defendant requested that the court hear evidence relating to the reasonable needs of the child or children for support and the relative ability of each party to provide support. Defendant requested that the court vary from the utilization of the child support guidelines. Furthermore, [defendant presented evidence which did indicate that the utilization of the guidelines would be otherwise unjust or inappropriate in this case.\n24.... It is reasonable that the court order an amount of child support obligation which deviates from the child support guidelines for the reason that the mother Samantha Horne has her boyfriend and his son living with her & the two [children]. The boyfriend earns $16.61 per hour 40 hrs per week.\nBased on these findings, the trial court ordered defendant pay $498.00 per month in total child support instead of $646.20.\nPlaintiff argues that the mere fact that Samantha Horne\u2019s boyfriend lives with her and the minor children and earns money is, without more, insufficient to support deviation from the guidelines. We agree.\nOur Supreme Court has determined that \u201ccontributions of a third party may be used to support deviation from the child support guidelines.\u201d Guilford County ex. rel. Easter v. Easter, 344 N.C. 166, 171, 473 S.E.2d 6, 9 (1996) (emphasis added). In doing so, the Court noted that\n[t]he role of the trial court is to determine whether the reasonable needs of the children are being met and whether imposing the presumptive amount would not meet or would exceed the reasonable needs of the children or would be otherwise inappropriate or unjust. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 50-13.4(c). In making this determination, the trial court should have at its disposal any information that sheds light on this inquiry.\nId. at 169-70, 473 S.E.2d at 8. Easter makes clear that the trial court may consider third-party contributions which support deviating from the guidelines. When considering third-party contributions, the trial court \u201cmust examine the extent and nature of the contributions in order to determine whether a deviation ... is appropriate considering the criteria for deviation set out in N.C.G.S. \u00a7 50-13.4(c).\u201d Id. at 171, 473 S.E.2d at 9.\nIn this case, the trial court\u2019s findings of fact establish only that Samantha Home\u2019s live-in boyfriend earns $16.61 per hour and works forty hours per week. Noticeably absent is an attempt to determine what, if any, contributions her boyfriend makes to the children or the household and on what basis. Absent appropriate findings of fact regarding the extent and nature of the boyfriend\u2019s contributions in consideration of the criteria identified in N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 50-13.4(c), we cannot review the appropriateness of the trial court\u2019s decision to deviate from the guidelines.\nMoreover, we note that the order also lacks sufficient findings of fact to support the amount of child support awarded. As stated above, when the trial court deviates from the presumptive guidelines, it \u201cshall make findings of fact as to the criteria that justify . . . the basis for the amount ordered.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 50-13.4(c) (1995). The findings of fact in this case do not indicate how the trial court arrived at $498.00 as reasonable child support for the children.\nPlaintiff also contends the trial court erred by failing to order defendant to pay his proportionate share of the children\u2019s uninsured medical, dental, and orthodontic expenses. In doing so, plaintiff acknowledges that the trial court found defendant had the ability and should pay half of these expenses, but complains that the court failed to incorporate this finding of fact into its conclusions of law and order. The record does not indicate why this finding was omitted from the conclusions of law and order; however, we assume this oversight will be corrected on remand.\nFor the reasons stated herein, the trial court\u2019s order is reversed and remanded. On remand, the trial court shall, consistent with this opinion, redetermine the parties\u2019 child support obligations based on the evidence presented at the 11 September 1996 hearing and such other evidence as may be received.\nReversed and remanded.\nJudges WYNN and JOHN concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "SMITH, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Michael F. Easley, by Assistant Attorney General Kathleen U. Baldwin, for plaintiff-appellant.",
      "No brief filed for defendant-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "State of North Carolina, by and through its Carteret Child Support Enforcement Office, ex. rel. Samantha L. Horne, Plaintiff v. Richard Lee Horne, II, Defendant\nNo. COA97-38\n(Filed 2 September 1997)\nDivorce and Separation \u00a7 392.1 (NCI4th)\u2014 child support \u2014 live-in boyfriend \u2014 deviation from guidelines \u2014 appropriate findings not made\nIn an action to establish support for defendant father\u2019s minor children, the trial court erred in deviating from the support guidelines codified in N.C.G.S. \u00a7 50-13.4(c) where the court ordered defendant to pay less than the amount provided in the guidelines based on findings that the minor children and their mother resided with mother\u2019s boyfriend and that he earns $16.61 per hour and works forty hours per week, but the court did not make the appropriate findings of fact regarding the extent and nature of the support the children received from the mother\u2019s live-in boyfriend.\nAppeal by plaintiff from order entered 19 September 1996 by Judge Jerry F. Waddell in Carteret County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 11 August 1997.\nSamantha and Richard Horne were married on 24 March 1990 and separated 10 March 1995. Two children, Laura and Riley, were bom of the marriage and both children live with their mother in the marital home. On 9 April 1996, Carteret County filed a complaint against defendant to establish support and maintenance, as well as health insurance coverage, for the minor children. In addition, Carteret County sought indemnification for all public assistance paid to on behalf of the minor children.\nOn 3 September 1996, defendant filed a notice he would seek a deviation from the North Carolina Child Support Guidelines (hereinafter \u201cguidelines\u201d). After hearing evidence on defendant\u2019s request for a deviation, the trial court entered an order in which it found the parties\u2019 combined monthly adjusted gross income of $2,080.00 resulted in a basic support obligation of $548.20 per month. With adjustments for health insurance premiums, the total child support obligation, per the child support guidelines, would be $646.20 per month. The trial court determined, however, that $498.00 per month would be reasonable child support, and that utilization of the guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate in this case. The trial court based its decision on the fact that Samantha Home\u2019s boyfriend, who earns $16.61 per hour and works forty hours per week, and his minor child live with her and the minor children. From this order, plaintiff appeals.\nAttorney General Michael F. Easley, by Assistant Attorney General Kathleen U. Baldwin, for plaintiff-appellant.\nNo brief filed for defendant-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0387-01",
  "first_page_order": 423,
  "last_page_order": 426
}