{
  "id": 11653140,
  "name": "JOHN ANDERSON TAYLOR, JR., Plaintiff v. DULCIA G. TAYLOR, Defendant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Taylor v. Taylor",
  "decision_date": "1997-12-16",
  "docket_number": "No. COA97-173",
  "first_page": "180",
  "last_page": "182",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "128 N.C. App. 180"
    }
  ],
  "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": "468 S.E.2d 33",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1996,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "343 N.C. 50",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        798953
      ],
      "year": 1996,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/343/0050-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "460 S.E.2d 330",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1995,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "340 N.C. 572",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        790145,
        790221,
        790139,
        790237,
        790079
      ],
      "year": 1995,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/340/0572-05",
        "/nc/340/0572-04",
        "/nc/340/0572-03",
        "/nc/340/0572-02",
        "/nc/340/0572-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "455 S.E.2d 442",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1995,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "118 N.C. App. 356",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11918367
      ],
      "year": 1995,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/118/0356-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "462 S.E.2d 219",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "220"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "341 N.C. 702",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        793212
      ],
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "703"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/341/0702-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "404 S.E.2d 478",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "479"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "103 N.C. App. 65",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8519509
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "67"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/103/0065-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 50-13.4",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "242 S.E.2d 642",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1978,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "644"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "35 N.C. App. 748",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8552187
      ],
      "year": 1978,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "751"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/35/0748-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 50-13.10",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(a)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "333 S.E.2d 312",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "no statutory authorization for the payment of prejudgment interest on an equitable distribution"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "76 N.C. App. 391",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8527344
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "no statutory authorization for the payment of prejudgment interest on an equitable distribution"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/76/0391-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 24-5",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "271 S.E.2d 58",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "63"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "301 N.C. 123",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8564391
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "128-29"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/301/0123-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "326 S.E.2d 863",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "868"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "313 N.C. 63",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4719540
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "69"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/313/0063-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 334,
    "char_count": 4663,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.724,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.040695925769662e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7477204269438102
    },
    "sha256": "26b47fa839daae485ffb45919ccc2f4e7765d64e1ea5ebb4a1b8815a54e44c44",
    "simhash": "1:03491544d43f4554",
    "word_count": 764
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:05:25.972365+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges GREENE and McGEE concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "JOHN ANDERSON TAYLOR, JR., Plaintiff v. DULCIA G. TAYLOR, Defendant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ARNOLD, Chief Judge.\nOn appeal from a child support order, \u201c[a]bsent a clear abuse of discretion, a judge\u2019s determination of what is a proper amount of support will not be disturbed on appeal.\u201d Plott v. Plott, 313 N.C. 63, 69, 326 S.E.2d 863, 868 (1985). To disturb the trial court\u2019s calculation of appropriate child support, an appellant must establish that the trial judge\u2019s ruling is \u201c \u2018manifestly unsupported by reason.\u2019 \u201d Id., quoting Clark v. Clark, 301 N.C. 123, 128-29, 271 S.E.2d 58, 63 (1980).\nThe significant issue in this appeal is whether the trial judge may award interest on an award of child support, accruing monthly on the total amount of unpaid support from the filing of the complaint. Plaintiff contends that there is no statutory authorization for an award of pre-judgment interest in a child support case. While recognizing that pre-judgment interest is authorized under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 24-5 in contract actions, and in non-contract actions when the damages are compensatory in nature, plaintiff argues that this statute is not applicable to an award of child support. See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 24-5 (1991). Plaintiff relies on equitable distribution cases, involving property distribution rather than support, to support his argument that the trial court was unauthorized to award interest in a child support action. Appelbe v. Appelbe, 76 N.C. App. 391, 333 S.E.2d 312 (1985) (no statutory authorization for the payment of prejudgment interest on an equitable distribution). He additionally seeks to distinguish this case from others in which awards of interest on arrearages were upheld.\nWe find plaintiffs argument unpersuasive. Under North Carolina law, past due child support payments vest when they accrue. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 50-13.10(a) (1995). Allowing plaintiff to defer payment for years of his obligations ensuing from the date of the filing of the complaint, without paying interest on the award, would effectively grant him an interest-free loan from his ex-wife. When determining a child support award, a trial judge has a high level of discretion, not only in setting the amount of the award, but also in establishing an appropriate remedy. Moore v. Moore, 35 N.C. App. 748, 751, 242 S.E.2d 642, 644 (1978). This discretion has been expanded in recent years due to the broad language of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 50-13.4. See Griffin v. Griffin, 103 N.C. App. 65, 404 S.E.2d 478 (1991). The North Carolina Supreme Court, moreover, upheld an award including interest when a defendant failed to meet his child support obligations under the parties\u2019 separation and modification agreements. Bromhal v. Stott, 341 N.C. 702, 703, 462 S.E.2d 219, 220 (1995). This Court also recognized the broad scope of remedies available to a trial judge in a child support case and upheld an award including interest \u201cfrom the date defendant filed the motion to have the arrearages reduced to judgment.\u201d Griffin, 103 N.C. App. at 67, 404 S.E.2d at 479. We hold, accordingly, that interest may be awarded on child support accruing on the date the complaint is filed.\nUpon review of plaintiff\u2019s remaining assignments of error, we find no prejudicial error.\nAffirmed.\nJudges GREENE and McGEE concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ARNOLD, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Edward P. Hausle, P.A., by Edward P. Hausle for plaintiff.",
      "Robinson & Rawing, L.L.P, by Norwood Robinson and C. Ray Grantham, Jr., for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JOHN ANDERSON TAYLOR, JR., Plaintiff v. DULCIA G. TAYLOR, Defendant\nNo. COA97-173\n(Filed 16 December 1997)\nInterest and Usury \u00a7 5 (NCI4th)\u2014 child support \u2014 prejudgment interest\nThe trial judge may award interest on child support accruing on the date the complaint was filed.\nAppeal by plaintiff John Anderson Taylor, Jr. from a child support order entered by Judge Chester C. Davis on 16 October 1996. Heard in the Court of Appeals 17 November 1997.\nPlaintiff and defendant, Dulcia G. Taylor, were divorced 18 July 1991, after almost ten years of marriage. During their marriage, the couple had two children: John Anderson Taylor, III who was born on 27 April 1983, and Ashton Ross Taylor who was born on 10 July 1986. After plaintiff father 'filed for divorce on 10 May 1991, defendant mother filed an answer and counterclaim seeking custody of the children and child support substantially in excess of the North Carolina Guidelines.\nThe trial court initially entered a child support order in Forsyth County District Court on 23 January 1994. Following appeals to this Court and the North Carolina Supreme Court, the case was remanded. See Taylor v. Taylor, 118 N.C. App. 356, 455 S.E.2d 442, review granted in part, denied in part, 340 N.C. 572, 460 S.E.2d 330 (1995), rev\u2019d 343 N.C. 50, 468 S.E.2d 33 (1996).\nEdward P. Hausle, P.A., by Edward P. Hausle for plaintiff.\nRobinson & Rawing, L.L.P, by Norwood Robinson and C. Ray Grantham, Jr., for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0180-01",
  "first_page_order": 216,
  "last_page_order": 218
}