{
  "id": 11242415,
  "name": "SHERYL W. BRANNOCK, Plaintiff v. TOMMY D. BRANNOCK, Defendant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Brannock v. Brannock",
  "decision_date": "1999-12-07",
  "docket_number": "No. COA98-1179",
  "first_page": "635",
  "last_page": "648",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "135 N.C. App. 635"
    }
  ],
  "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": "172 S.E. 377",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "year": 1934,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "384",
          "parenthetical": "Clarkson, J., concurring"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "205 N.C. 663",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8630940
      ],
      "year": 1934,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "677-78",
          "parenthetical": "Clarkson, J., concurring"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/205/0663-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "337 S.E.2d 158",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 7,
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "159"
        },
        {
          "page": "160"
        },
        {
          "page": "161-62"
        },
        {
          "page": "161"
        },
        {
          "page": "162"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 N.C. App. 445",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8521944
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "450"
        },
        {
          "page": "450"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/78/0445-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "241 S.E.2d 339",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1978,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "343",
          "parenthetical": "\"G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 56(c) does not require that a party move for summary judgment in order to be entitled to it\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "35 N.C. App. 308",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8549002
      ],
      "year": 1978,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "314",
          "parenthetical": "\"G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 56(c) does not require that a party move for summary judgment in order to be entitled to it\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/35/0308-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "139 L. Ed. 2d 676",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d",
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "amendment to federal statute governing entitlement of state prisoners to habeas corpus relief \"goes beyond 'mere' procedure to affect substantive entitlement to relief' and therefore not applicable to proceeding pending at time amendment enacted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "522 U.S. 1069",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        11597249,
        11597444,
        11597290,
        11597388,
        11597523,
        11597339
      ],
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "amendment to federal statute governing entitlement of state prisoners to habeas corpus relief \"goes beyond 'mere' procedure to affect substantive entitlement to relief' and therefore not applicable to proceeding pending at time amendment enacted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/522/1069-01",
        "/us/522/1069-05",
        "/us/522/1069-02",
        "/us/522/1069-04",
        "/us/522/1069-06",
        "/us/522/1069-03"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "521 U.S. 320",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        915758
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "327"
        },
        {
          "page": "489"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/521/0320-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "520 U.S. 939",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        11653538
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "950",
          "parenthetical": "\"it is simply not the case that . . . the elimination of a prior defense . . . does not 'create a new cause of action' or 'change the substance of the extant cause of action' \""
        },
        {
          "page": "146",
          "parenthetical": "\"it is simply not the case that . . . the elimination of a prior defense . . . does not 'create a new cause of action' or 'change the substance of the extant cause of action' \""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/520/0939-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "269 S.E.2d 630",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 6,
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "634"
        },
        {
          "page": "634"
        },
        {
          "page": "634"
        },
        {
          "page": "634"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "48 N.C. App. 38",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8548896
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "46"
        },
        {
          "page": "46"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/48/0038-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "69 A. 821",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "A.",
      "year": 1908,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "823"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "70 L. Ed. 2d 590",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d",
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "454 U.S. 1054",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6470595,
        6469991,
        6469869,
        6470446,
        6470125,
        6470352,
        6470065,
        6470263,
        6470713,
        6470846
      ],
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/454/1054-08",
        "/us/454/1054-02",
        "/us/454/1054-01",
        "/us/454/1054-07",
        "/us/454/1054-04",
        "/us/454/1054-06",
        "/us/454/1054-03",
        "/us/454/1054-05",
        "/us/454/1054-09",
        "/us/454/1054-10"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "649 F.2d 985",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1235880
      ],
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/649/0985-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "485 F. Supp. 1049",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F. Supp.",
      "case_ids": [
        1462089
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "1057"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f-supp/485/1049-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "714 F.2d 135",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "550 F. Supp. 1287",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F. Supp.",
      "case_ids": [
        5693085
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f-supp/550/1287-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "58 N.W.2d 106",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.W.2d",
      "year": 1953,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "111",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "172 S.E.2d 489",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 12,
      "year": 1970,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "490"
        },
        {
          "page": "491"
        },
        {
          "page": "490"
        },
        {
          "page": "491"
        },
        {
          "page": "491"
        },
        {
          "page": "492"
        },
        {
          "page": "492"
        },
        {
          "page": "494-95",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        },
        {
          "page": "494"
        },
        {
          "page": "494"
        },
        {
          "page": "492"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "276 N.C. 329",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561328
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1970,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "337"
        },
        {
          "page": "337"
        },
        {
          "page": "333"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/276/0329-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "374 S.E.2d 450",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "452-53",
          "parenthetical": "adultery by supporting spouse after separation date, but prior to divorce, grounds for alimony; no distinction between pre-separation and post-separation adultery under G.S. \u00a7 50-16.2(1)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "92 N.C. App. 274",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8526792
      ],
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "278-79",
          "parenthetical": "adultery by supporting spouse after separation date, but prior to divorce, grounds for alimony; no distinction between pre-separation and post-separation adultery under G.S. \u00a7 50-16.2(1)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/92/0274-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "76 N.C.L. Rev. 2018",
      "category": "journals:journal",
      "reporter": "N.C. L. Rev.",
      "year": 1998,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "14 S.E.2d 833",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1941,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "835",
          "parenthetical": "\"[a]n action is deemed to be pending from the time it is commenced until its final determination\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "219 N.C. 731",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626200
      ],
      "year": 1941,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "734",
          "parenthetical": "\"[a]n action is deemed to be pending from the time it is commenced until its final determination\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/219/0731-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "1995 N.C. Sess. Laws 641",
      "category": "laws:leg_session",
      "reporter": "N.C. Sess. Laws",
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "487 S.E.2d 549",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "346 N.C. 280",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        139620,
        139372,
        139535,
        139646,
        139327
      ],
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/346/0280-03",
        "/nc/346/0280-01",
        "/nc/346/0280-04",
        "/nc/346/0280-05",
        "/nc/346/0280-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "481 S.E.2d 401",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "402",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "125 N.C. App. 611",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11870602
      ],
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "613",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/125/0611-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "336 S.E.2d 402",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "314 N.C. 670",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4695567,
        4694192,
        4687347,
        4697398,
        4688025
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/314/0670-05",
        "/nc/314/0670-02",
        "/nc/314/0670-01",
        "/nc/314/0670-03",
        "/nc/314/0670-04"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "332 S.E.2d 730",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "733"
        },
        {
          "page": "733"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "76 N.C. App. 284",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8527051
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "289"
        },
        {
          "page": "289"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/76/0284-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "393 S.E.2d 875",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "326 N.C. 594",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        5307908,
        5304649,
        5305132,
        5308754,
        5309239
      ],
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/326/0594-03",
        "/nc/326/0594-01",
        "/nc/326/0594-02",
        "/nc/326/0594-04",
        "/nc/326/0594-05"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "388 S.E.2d 239",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "240",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        },
        {
          "page": "240"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "97 N.C. App. 295",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8520644
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "297",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        },
        {
          "page": "297"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/97/0295-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "198 S.E.2d 741",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "743",
          "parenthetical": "provisions of Rule 41 follow G.S. \u00a7 1-25 without change"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "19 N.C. App. 352",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8553310
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "355",
          "parenthetical": "provisions of Rule 41 follow G.S. \u00a7 1-25 without change"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/19/0352-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "35 S.E.2d 623",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1945,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "625",
          "parenthetical": "construing N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1-25, a predecessor of Rule 41(a)(1)"
        },
        {
          "page": "625"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "225 N.C. 514",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8612184
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1945,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "518",
          "parenthetical": "construing N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1-25, a predecessor of Rule 41(a)(1)"
        },
        {
          "page": "518"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/225/0514-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "350 N.C. 599",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        132032,
        132322,
        132100,
        132262,
        132248
      ],
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "plaintiffs assignments of error and arguments in appellate brief preserved right to appeal interlocutory order notwithstanding plaintiffs failure to reference order in formal notice of appeal"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/350/0599-03",
        "/nc/350/0599-01",
        "/nc/350/0599-04",
        "/nc/350/0599-05",
        "/nc/350/0599-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "512 S.E.2d 468",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "470-71",
          "parenthetical": "plaintiffs assignments of error and arguments in appellate brief preserved right to appeal interlocutory order notwithstanding plaintiffs failure to reference order in formal notice of appeal"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "132 N.C. App. 401",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11238365
      ],
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "406",
          "parenthetical": "plaintiffs assignments of error and arguments in appellate brief preserved right to appeal interlocutory order notwithstanding plaintiffs failure to reference order in formal notice of appeal"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/132/0401-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "412 S.E.2d 327",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1992,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "plaintiffs possessed \"unqualified right\" to take Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal where case in pretrial stage and defendants had sought no affirmative relief"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "330 N.C. 644",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2508834
      ],
      "year": 1992,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "plaintiffs possessed \"unqualified right\" to take Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal where case in pretrial stage and defendants had sought no affirmative relief"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/330/0644-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "380 S.E.2d 548",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1989,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "550"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "94 N.C. App. 594",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8527650
      ],
      "year": 1989,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "596"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/94/0594-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "401 S.E.2d 662",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "664",
          "parenthetical": "a party \"is free to abandon an alleged or potential claim against another party at any time\" and \"no action of the court is necessary\" to give Rule 41(a)(1) notice of dismissal its full effect"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "102 N.C. App. 247",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8523208
      ],
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "250-51",
          "parenthetical": "a party \"is free to abandon an alleged or potential claim against another party at any time\" and \"no action of the court is necessary\" to give Rule 41(a)(1) notice of dismissal its full effect"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/102/0247-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "321 S.E.2d 157",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1984,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "Rule 41(a)(1) \"does not require court action, other than ministerial record-keeping functions, to effect a dismissal\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "311 N.C. 769",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4685827,
        4683427,
        4686693,
        4682357,
        4682613
      ],
      "year": 1984,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "Rule 41(a)(1) \"does not require court action, other than ministerial record-keeping functions, to effect a dismissal\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/311/0769-01",
        "/nc/311/0769-05",
        "/nc/311/0769-04",
        "/nc/311/0769-03",
        "/nc/311/0769-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "314 S.E.2d 814",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1984,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "819",
          "parenthetical": "Rule 41(a)(1) \"does not require court action, other than ministerial record-keeping functions, to effect a dismissal\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "68 N.C. App. 74",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8526700
      ],
      "year": 1984,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "78",
          "parenthetical": "Rule 41(a)(1) \"does not require court action, other than ministerial record-keeping functions, to effect a dismissal\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/68/0074-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "456 S.E.2d 315",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1995,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "340 N.C. 112",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        790113,
        790149,
        790183,
        790186,
        790131
      ],
      "year": 1995,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/340/0112-03",
        "/nc/340/0112-05",
        "/nc/340/0112-01",
        "/nc/340/0112-04",
        "/nc/340/0112-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "450 S.E.2d 920",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "922-23"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "117 N.C. App. 415",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8525558
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "418-19"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/117/0415-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "444 S.E.2d 177",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "181",
          "parenthetical": "\"if alimony . . . claim[] [is] properly asserted . . . and [is] not voluntarily dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) until after judgment of absolute divorce is entered, a new action based on th[at] claim[] may be filed within the one-year period\""
        },
        {
          "page": "181"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "336 N.C. 473",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2536260
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "479",
          "parenthetical": "\"if alimony . . . claim[] [is] properly asserted . . . and [is] not voluntarily dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) until after judgment of absolute divorce is entered, a new action based on th[at] claim[] may be filed within the one-year period\""
        },
        {
          "page": "479"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/336/0473-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 1248,
    "char_count": 33747,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.743,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.7239661258868866e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8304252487307175
    },
    "sha256": "3741de1ae495c5f65792b794527ea94aea76cc269a84614c5ee2d721962b081c",
    "simhash": "1:b368c5263e8dad42",
    "word_count": 5511
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:51:33.981101+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges TIMMONS-GOODSON and HUNTER concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "SHERYL W. BRANNOCK, Plaintiff v. TOMMY D. BRANNOCK, Defendant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JOHN, Judge.\nDefendant appeals the trial court\u2019s 25 June 1998, nunc pro tunc 23 April 1998, grant of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff. Defendant contends the trial court erred by allowing plaintiff to pursue a new alimony claim (Claim # 2) under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 50-16.1A et seq. (1995) following her voluntary dismissal of a pending alimony claim (Claim #1) asserted under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 50-16.1 et seq. (repealed by 1995 N.C. Sess. Laws ch. 319, \u00a7 1, effective October 1,1995). We reverse the trial court.\nPertinent undisputed facts and relevant procedural history include the following: Plaintiff and defendant were married 24 May 1976 and separated 14 July 1994. Defendant instituted a divorce action 17 July 1995, and plaintiff responded 14 August 1995 with an answer and counterclaim seeking alimony pursuant to G.S. \u00a7 50-16.1 et seq. (repealed). Defendant\u2019s 25 August 1995 Reply asserted as an affirmative defense that plaintiff had\nengaged in an adulterous relationship . . . [and that] N.C.G.S. \u00a7 50-16.6 specifically does not allow alimony to be paid when the issue of adultery is found against the spouse seeking alimony.\nDefendant also filed and served upon plaintiff a request for admissions, eliciting therein acknowledgment by plaintiff that she had \u201cengaged in a sexual relationship since the date of separation from [defendant] with a person other than [defendant].\u201d Plaintiff failed to respond thereto and the parties do not dispute that defendant\u2019s request was deemed admitted by operation of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 36 (1990).\nPlaintiff and defendant were divorced 11 April 1996, the judgment providing that matters pertaining to alimony were \u201cretained by the Court for hearing at a later date.\u201d On 21 March 1997, plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice, see N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 41(a) (1990) (Rule 41(a)), voluntarily dismissing Claim #1.\nOn 2 April 1997, plaintiff filed a complaint asserting Claim # 2 and alleging in pertinent part as follows:\n5. At the time the judgment of absolute divorce was entered . . . Plaintiff had pending a counterclaim for alimony. . . .\n7. Pursuant to Rule 41 . . . [and] Stegall v. Stegall, 336 N.C. 473, 444 S.E.2d 177 (1994), Plaintiff is entitled to file a new action based upon the same claims as originally asserted in her counterclaim for alimony [Claim #1] . . . within one year of the voluntary dismissal without prejudice of her counterclaim.\n13. The Plaintiff is automatically entitled to an award of alimony by virtue of the Defendant\u2019s participating in an act of illicit sexual behavior as defined in N.C.G.S. \u00a7 50-16.lA(3)a, during the marriage and prior to the date of separation. The Plaintiff did not participate in an act of illicit sexual behavior as defined in N.C.G.S. \u00a7 50-16.1A(3)a, during the marriage and prior to the date of separation.\nDefendant\u2019s 11 July 1997 answer and motion to dismiss pleaded, inter alia, plaintiff\u2019s adultery prior to divorce as a bar to \u201c[plaintiff\u2019s demand for alimony herein.\u201d\nOn 26 August 1997, defendant filed a stipulation, \u201cfor the purposes of Plaintiff\u2019s claim for alimony\u201d in Claim # 2, conceding he had committed illicit sexual behavior under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 50-16.3A(a) (1995). The referenced statute provides:\n(a) ... If the court finds that the dependent spouse participated in an act of illicit sexual behavior [including adultery] . . . during the marriage and prior to or on the date of separation, the court shall not award alimony. If the court finds that the supporting spouse participated in [adultery] . . . during the marriage and prior to or on the date of separation, then the court shall order that alimony be paid to a dependent spouse.\nG.S. \u00a7 50-16.3A(a).\nFollowing a 10 December 1997 trial court order to compel, plaintiff filed a response to admissions. Plaintiff admitted therein that she had \u201cengaged in sexual relationships with a person other than\u201d defendant and that she had \u201cnot remained celibate from the date of separation until [the] date of divorce.\u201d\nPlaintiff moved for summary judgment 17 March 1998 as to the issue of her entitlement to alimony under G.S. \u00a7 50-16.3A(a). She argued there remained no issue of material fact in view of defendant\u2019s uncontested status as supporting spouse, his stipulated participation in illicit sexual behavior as defined in the new statute during the marriage and prior to separation, and the absence of plaintiffs misconduct, again as provided in the new law, prior to separation. The trial court agreed and allowed plaintiffs motion 25 June 1998. Defendant appeals.\nWe note preliminarily the record contains no indication that defendant interjected notice of appeal upon plaintiffs voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a) of Claim # 1. This Court has held that an involuntary dismissal under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 41(b) (1990) (Rule 41(b)), constitutes a discretionary action of the trial court and a party who fails to appeal such dismissal is bound thereby. Jones v. Summers, 117 N.C. App. 415, 418-19, 450 S.E.2d 920, 922-23 (1994), disc. review denied, 340 N.C. 112, 456 S.E.2d 315 (1995). However, a Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal emanates from a party\u2019s election to dismiss a claim and, unlike dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(b), is not based upon an order or discretionary ruling of the court. See G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 41(a)(1) (\u201caction or any claim . . . may be dismissed by the plaintiff without order of court... by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before the plaintiff rests his case\u201d) (emphasis added); Ward v. Taylor, 68 N.C. App. 74, 78, 314 S.E.2d 814, 819, disc. review denied, 311 N.C. 769, 321 S.E.2d 157 (1984) (Rule 41(a)(1) \u201cdoes not require court action, other than ministerial record-keeping functions, to effect a dismissal\u201d); Carter v. Clowers, 102 N.C. App. 247, 250-51, 401 S.E.2d 662, 664 (1991) (a party \u201cis free to abandon an alleged or potential claim against another party at any time\u201d and \u201cno action of the court is necessary\u201d to give Rule 41(a)(1) notice of dismissal its full effect) (emphasis in original); and Kohn v. Mug-A-Bug, 94 N.C. App. 594, 596, 380 S.E.2d 548, 550 (1989), overruled on other grounds, Bryson v. Sullivan, 330 N.C. 644, 412 S.E.2d 327 (1992) (plaintiffs possessed \u201cunqualified right\u201d to take Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal where case in pretrial stage and defendants had sought no affirmative relief).\nIt thus appears any attempt by defendant to appeal plaintiffs Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal of Claim # 1 would have been ineffective. See N.C.R. App. P. 3(a) (appeal may be taken only \u201cfrom a judgment or order of a superior or district court rendered in a civil action\u201d) (emphasis added). Accordingly, defendant\u2019s failure to appeal does not preclude our consideration herein of the assignments of error and arguments addressed to dismissal of Claim # 1. See also Wells v. Wells, 132 N.C. App. 401, 406, 512 S.E.2d 468, 470-71, disc. review denied, 350 N.C. 599, - S.E.2d - (1999) (plaintiffs assignments of error and arguments in appellate brief preserved right to appeal interlocutory order notwithstanding plaintiffs failure to reference order in formal notice of appeal).\nWe turn therefore to defendant\u2019s argument that Claim # 2 failed to qualify as \u201ca new action based on the same claim\u201d under Rule 41(a)(1) so as to permit filing of Claim # 2 within one year of plaintiff\u2019s dismissal of Claim # 1. G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 41(a)(1). According to defendant, G.S. \u00a7 50-16.1A et seq. created a claim of alimony distinct from that set out in repealed G.S. \u00a7 50-16.1 et seq. Defendant points to significant substantive differences affecting, inter alia, entitlement to alimony. We conclude defendant\u2019s argument is well founded.\nRule 41(a) provides:\nIf an action commenced within the time prescribed therefor, or any claim therein, is dismissed without prejudice under this subsection, a new action based on the same claim may be commenced within one year after such dismissal....\nG.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 41(a)(1).\nOur courts have required the \u201cstrictest factual identity between the original\u201d claim, Goodson v. Lehmon, 225 N.C. 514, 518, 35 S.E.2d 623, 625 (1945) (construing N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1-25, a predecessor of Rule 41(a)(1)); see Whitehurst v. Transportation Co., 19 N.C. App. 352, 355, 198 S.E.2d 741, 743 (1973) (provisions of Rule 41 follow G.S. \u00a7 1-25 without change), and the \u201cnew\u201d action, which must be based upon the \u201csame claim,\u201d G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 41(a)(1), as the original action. Further, both claims must be \u201csubstantially the same, involving the same parties, the same cause of action, and the same right.\u201d Cherokee Ins. Co. v. R/I, Inc., 97 N.C. App. 295, 297, 388 S.E.2d 239, 240, disc. review denied, 326 N.C. 594, 393 S.E.2d 875 (1990) (citations omitted). If the actions are \u201cfundamentally different,\u201d Stanford v. Owens, 76 N.C. App. 284, 289, 332 S.E.2d 730, 733, disc. review denied, 314 N.C. 670, 336 S.E.2d 402 (1985), or not \u201cbased on the same claim[s],\u201d G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 41(a)(1), the new action is not considered a \u201ccontinuation of the [original] action,\u201d Goodson, 225 N.C. at 518, 35 S.E.2d at 625, and Rule 41(a) may not be invoked.\nNotwithstanding, it appears a party may voluntarily dismiss a pending alimony claim following entry of a divorce judgment and thereafter file within one year under Rule 41(a) an action based upon the earlier alimony claim. Stegall v. Stegall, 336 N.C. 473, 479, 444 S.E.2d 177, 181 (1994) (\u201cif alimony . . . claim[] [is] properly asserted . . . and [is] not voluntarily dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) until after judgment of absolute divorce is entered, a new action based on th[at] claim[] may be filed within the one-year period\u201d); cf. Lafferty v. Lafferty, 125 N.C. App. 611, 613, 481 S.E.2d 401, 402, disc. review denied, 346 N.C. 280, 487 S.E.2d 549 (1997) (citations omitted) (plaintiff may not voluntarily dismiss claim under Rule 41(a) without consent of defendant where latter has set up claim against plaintiff arising out of same transactions alleged by plaintiff). While plaintiff relies on Stegall as establishing that \u201cdismissal of her first claim after the entry of Judgment of Divorce and the subsequent refiling of the action was procedurally proper,\u201d she concedes the case does not address the operation of Rule 41(a)(1) when new legislation intervenes between dismissal and subsequent refiling.\nPertinent to the case sub judice and effective 1 October 1995, G.S. \u00a7 50-16.1A et seq. repealed the existing alimony statute, G.S. \u00a7 50-16.1 et seq., and became applicable to civil actions filed on or after said date, specifically excluding pending litigation or motions in the cause seeking to modify orders or judgments already in effect on that date. G.S. \u00a7 50-16.1A (Act of June 21,1995, ch. 319, \u00a7 12,1995 N.C. Sess. Laws 641, 649) (provisions \u201cshall not apply to pending litigation, or to future motions in the cause seeking to modify orders or judgments in effect on October 1, 1995\u201d).\nWe begin with the observation that plaintiffs reference to Stegall may not be beneficial to her position before this Court. Stegall in effect held that an alimony claim pending at the time of a divorce judgment and subsequently voluntarily dismissed may be refiled within the one year period permitted by Rule 41(a)(1). Stegall, 336 N.C. at 479, 444 S.E.2d at 181. By citing Stegall, plaintiff thus posits that Claim # 1, later dismissed 21 March 1997 and, according to plaintiff, refiled as Claim # 2 on 2 April 1997, was pending 1 October 1995. However, G.S. \u00a7 50-16.1A et seq., upon which plaintiff expressly based Claim # 2, provides the section is inapplicable to litigation pending upon the statutory effective date of 1 October 1995.\nIf, therefore, as plaintiff argues to this Court, Claim # 2 is \u201cbased on the same claim,\u201d G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 41(a)(1), advanced in Claim # 1, it would then appear that Claim # 2 was \u201cpending\u201d 1 October 1995 and the provisions of G.S. \u00a7 50-16.1A et seq. would not be applicable. See McFetters v. McFetters, 219 N.C. 731, 734, 14 S.E.2d 833, 835 (1941) (\u201c[a]n action is deemed to be pending from the time it is commenced until its final determination\u201d); see also Black\u2019s Law Dictionary 1021 (5th ed. 1979) (\u201can action or suit is \u2018pending\u2019 from its inception until the rendition of final judgment; [action b]egun, but not yet completed\u201d), and The American Heritage College Dictionary 1010 (3d ed. 1997) (\u201cpending\u201d defined as \u201c[n]ot yet decided or settled; awaiting conclusion or confirmation\u201d). On the other hand, if Claim # 2 is found not to be \u201cbased on the same claim\u201d advanced in Claim # 1, then Claim # 2 must fail as a \u201cnew\u201d claim for alimony initiated subsequent to the parties\u2019 divorce. See N.C.G.S. \u00a7 50-ll(c)(1995) (divorce \u201cshall not affect the rights of either spouse with respect to any action for alimony .. . pending at the time the judgment for divorce is granted\u201d). While plaintiff\u2019s appeal would thus be unavailing under either theory, we conclude Claim # 2 did not constitute \u201ca new action based on the same claim.\u201d G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 41(a)(1).\nThe new statute has been described as effecting a \u201cwholesale revision,\u201d Sally B. Sharp, Step by Step: The Development of the Distributive Consequences of Divorce in North Carolina, 76 N.C.L. Rev. 2018 (1998); see id. at n.1 (\u201cdefinitions of a dependent spouse and a supporting spouse ... are virtually the only portions of the new alimony act. . . that have remained in their original form\u201d), in North Carolina alimony law, \u201cbasically replacing],\u201d id. at 2029, prior law with new \u201cprinciples, concepts and directives that are inconsistent with previous c\u00e1se law,\u201d id. at 2031, and laying a \u201cfoundation for the development of many fundamental principles thus far unknown\u201d to our State\u2019s domestic law, id. at 2021. In short, the new alimony statute created: 1) postseparation support, a new category of support replacing alimony pendente lite, 2) less restrictive dependency requirements, 3) greater flexibility in determining the amount and duration of alimony, including a marked departure from a standard of living assessment, and, most significantly 4) less emphasis on fault. See id. at 2022.\nFor example, North Carolina courts previously were required to conduct a completely fault-based assessment to determine entitlement to alimony, whereas under the new statute fault merely constitutes a factor to be considered in resolving support eligibility and amount. See id. at 2031-32. Prior law entitled a dependent spouse to alimony upon proof the supporting spouse had committed one of ten fault grounds set forth under G.S. \u00a7 50-16.2 (repealed), including adultery. G.S. \u00a7 50-16.2(1) (repealed); see Adams v. Adams, 92 N.C. App. 274, 278-79, 374 S.E.2d 450, 452-53 (1988) (adultery by supporting spouse after separation date, but prior to divorce, grounds for alimony; no distinction between pre-separation and post-separation adultery under G.S. \u00a7 50-16.2(1)). However, regardless of such proof, a dependent spouse was barred from an award of alimony if \u201cadultery [wa]s pleaded in bar of demand . . . and the issue of adultery [wa]s found against the spouse seeking alimony.\u201d G.S. \u00a7 50-16.6(a) (repealed). Accordingly, proof a dependent spouse had committed adultery anytime prior to entry of divorce provided the supporting spouse an absolute defense against an alimony claim, notwithstanding similar misconduct by the supporting spouse. See id.\nBy contrast, the new alimony statute has replaced the concept of adultery with a broader category denominated \u201cillicit sexual behavior,\u201d G.S. \u00a7 50-16.lA(3)(a), encompassing, by way of example, adultery committed \u201cduring the marriage and prior to or on the date of separation,\u201d G.S. \u00a7 50-16.1A(3). In focusing solely upon misconduct prior to separation, the new law substantively changed previous concern with acts occurring anytime before divorce.\nIn addition, the new statute entirely eliminated the. absolute defense provided in G.S. \u00a7 50-16.6(a) (repealed). On the issue of adultery, G.S. \u00a7 50-16.3A(a) states:\nIf the court finds that the dependent spouse participated in an act of illicit sexual behavior . . . during the marriage and prior to or on the date of separation, the court shall not award alimony. If the court finds that the supporting spouse participated in an act of illicit sexual behavior . . . during the marriage and prior to or on the date of separation, then the court shall order that alimony be paid to a dependent spouse. If the court finds that the dependent and the supporting spouse each participated in an act of illicit sexual behavior . . . then alimony shall be denied or awarded in the discretion of the court after consideration of all of the circumstances.\nG.S. \u00a7 50-16.3A(a). The foregoing \u201caffirmative mandate that a proven adulterous supporting spouse be ordered to make alimony payments is completely new to North Carolina law.\u201d S. Sharp, 76 N.C.L. Rev. at 2058. Also \u201ccompletely new,\u201d id., is the provision deferring to the trial court\u2019s discretion the decision of whether to award alimony in the instance where both the supporting and dependent spouse \u201ceach participated in an act of illicit sexual behavior.\u201d G.S. \u00a7 16.3A(a).\nIn the case sub judice, defendant, the supporting spouse, raised the absolute defense under G.S. \u00a7 50-16.6(a) (repealed), of plaintiffs postseparation adultery in his reply to Claim #1. However, plaintiff maintains this preexisting absolute defense is not available to defendant under Claim # 2 filed pursuant to G.S. \u00a7 50-16.3A. In addition, according to plaintiff, defendant may properly be subjected to liability under statutory provisions not enacted at the time Claim # 1 was filed.\nThe issue, therefore, is whether the \u201cnew action based on the same claim\u201d language of Rule 41(a)(1) will permit plaintiffs prosecution of Claim # 2, filed within one year of her dismissal of Claim # 1. We conclude the trial court erroneously resolved this issue in favor of plaintiff.\nThe leading North Carolina case addressing retroactive statutory application, Smith v. Mercer, 276 N.C. 329, 172 S.E.2d 489 (1970), contains instructive language. Smith involved a wrongful death action instituted 3 July 1969 on behalf of an intestate killed 16 March 1968. Id. at 331, 172 S.E.2d at 490. Revisions to the North Carolina wrongful death statute became effective 14 April 1969 as to claims filed on or after that date, but not to pending actions. Id. at 332, 172 S.E.2d at 491. Prior to amendment, the statute allowed recovery for \u201cthe loss of a human life [based upon] the present value of the net pecuniary worth of the deceased based upon his life expectancy.\u201d Id. at 331, 172 S.E.2d at 490. However, the new statute provided for numerous additional elements of damages, including hospitalization and funeral expenses, pain and suffering of the decedent, and punitive damages. Id. at 332, 172 S.E.2d at 491.\nAlthough the decedent\u2019s death occurred prior to 14 April 1969, no action based upon the death was pending on that date. Id. at 333, 172 S.E.2d at 491. Our Supreme Court held the new statute \u201ccreated a new cause of action\u201d for wrongful death that \u201cdid not exist on [the date decedent] . . . was killed,\u201d id. at 334, 172 S.E.2d at 492, because, \u201c[although the procedural remedy [action for wrongful death] . . . [wa]s the same, the substantive rights of the parties [we]re different,\u201d id. at 333, 172 S.E.2d at 492.\nThe Court reviewed \u201cgeneral principles\u201d involved in determining whether a statute should be construed to apply prospectively or retroactively:\n\u201cOrdinarily, an intention to give a statute a retroactive operation will not be inferred .... It is especially true that the statute or amendment will be regarded as operating prospectively only, where . . . the effect of giving it a retroactive operation would be to . . . destroy a vested right, or create a new liability in connection with a past transaction, [or] invalidate a defense which was good when the statute was passed . . . .\u201d \u201cA retrospective law, in a legal sense, is one which takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation and imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability, in respect of transactions or considerations already passed . . . .\u201d\nId. at 337-38, 172 S.E.2d at 494-95 (citations omitted). See also Minty v. Board of State Auditors, 58 N.W.2d 106, 111 (Mich. 1953) (citation omitted) (action accruing prior to, but filed after, repeal of statute is governed by repealed statute, because \u201cthe law of the case at that time when it became complete is an inherent element in it; and, if changed or annulled, the law is annulled, justice denied, and the due course of law is violated\u201d).\nNumerous subsequent cases have cited and relied upon the holding in Smith. In White v. American Motors Sales Corp., 550 F. Supp. 1287 (W.D. Va. 1982), aff\u2019d, 714 F.2d 135 (4th Cir. 1983), for example, North Carolina\u2019s \u201cProducts Liability\u201d statute, which abolished the defense of lack of privity, was held not to apply retroactively to accidents occurring prior to its effective date, regardless of whether an action was pending on its effective date or filed thereafter. Relying on Smith, the White Court observed retrospective application would \u201ccreate liability for the defendant where none existed at the time of the accident\u201d by virtue of the elimination of an existing defense. Id. at 1293; see 73 Am. Jur. 2d Statutes \u00a7 350 (1974) (cases arising before passage of new law are not governed by new law where unexpected liability would be imposed); see also United Roasters, Inc. v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 485 F. Supp. 1049, 1057 (E.D.N.C. 1980), aff'd, 649 F.2d 985 (4th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1054, 70 L. Ed. 2d 590 (1981) (\u201c[u]nder the general principles laid down by Smith v. Mercer, it is clear that 1977 amendments to [statute relied upon in plaintiffs 1976 action] constituted a substantive revision intended to expand . . . potential liability\u201d that did not exist prior to the amendments, and thus amendments would not apply to plaintiff\u2019s claim), and Lewis v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 69 A. 821, 823 (Pa. 1908) (\u201cto impose a liability for a past occurrence where none existed at the time, or, what is the same thing, take away a legal defense available at the time\u201d would exceed constitutional limitations; \u201claw can be repealed by the lawgiver, but the rights which have been acquired under it, while it was in force, do not thereby cease\u201d).\nFurther, in Gardner v. Gardner, 48 N.C. App. 38, 269 S.E.2d 630 (1980), this Court relied upon Smith in holding that a statutory amendment not specifying whether it was applicable to pending litigation would not operate to allow striking of defendant wife\u2019s recriminatory defenses in a divorce action filed prior to the date of amendment. Id. at 45, 269 S.E.2d at 634. In so ruling, we noted:\n[t]he general rule of construction is that an amendment which invalidates a preexisting statutory defense will, in the absence of a clear legislative intention otherwise, be given prospective effect only.\nId.\nNotably, we further observed that defendant wife would not have been entitled to assert recriminatory defenses had plaintiff instituted divorce proceedings following enactment of the statutory amendment, but because the divorce complaint had initially been filed prior to amendment, \u201creference to the entire history of litigation between the parties,\u201d id. at 46, 269 S.E.2d at 634, was required.\nIn the case sub judice, defendant pled an absolute defense to Claim #1 pursuant to G.S. \u00a7 50-16.6(a) (repealed), then in effect. By virtue of her failure to respond to defendant\u2019s request for admissions, plaintiff had affirmatively established the existence of a factual basis for defendant\u2019s absolute defense. Thereafter, in Claim # 2, plaintiff sought relief under G.S. \u00a7 50-16.1A et seq., which abolished defendant\u2019s previously established absolute adultery defense, shifted the focus from pre-divorce misconduct to pre-separation misconduct, and subjected defendant to automatic liability for his admitted misconduct prior to separation.\nTo conclude, considering the resultant \u201cinvalidation]\u201d of a statutory absolute defense defendant enjoyed as a \u201cvested right,\u201d Smith, 276 N.C. at 337, 172 S.E.2d at 494; see also Hughes Air. v. United States ex rel. Schumer, 520 U.S. 939, 950, 138 L. Ed. 2d 135, 146 (1997) (\u201cit is simply not the case that . . . the elimination of a prior defense . . . does not \u2018create a new cause of action\u2019 or \u2018change the substance of the extant cause of action\u2019 \u201d), at the time plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Claim # 1, and the subjection of defendant to \u201cnew liability,\u201d Smith, 276 N.C. at 337, 172 S.E.2d at 494, which did not previously exist, we cannot say, particularly upon viewing the \u201centire history of litigation between the parties,\u201d Gardner, 48 N.C. App. at 46, 269 S.E.2d at 634, noted above, that Claim # 2 constituted \u201ca new action based on the same claim,\u201d G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 41(a)(1), earlier voluntarily dismissed by plaintiff. While the \u201cprocedural remedy\u201d of an alimony claim previously existed, \u201cthe substantive rights of the parties are different.\u201d Smith, 276 N.C. at 333, 172 S.E.2d at 492; see also Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 327, 138 L. Ed. 2d 481, 489 (1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1069, 139 L. Ed. 2d 676 (1998) (amendment to federal statute governing entitlement of state prisoners to habeas corpus relief \u201cgoes beyond \u2018mere\u2019 procedure to affect substantive entitlement to relief\u2019 and therefore not applicable to proceeding pending at time amendment enacted).\nTherefore, based upon the foregoing, we hold Claim # 1 and Claim # 2 are neither \u201csubstantially the same\u201d nor \u201cinvolv[e] . . . the same right,\u201d Cherokee Ins. Co., 97 N.C. App. at 297, 388 S.E.2d at 240, but rather are \u201cfundamentally different,\u201d Stanford, 76 N.C. App. at 289, 332 S.E.2d at 733. Accordingly, plaintiff\u2019s filing of Claim # 2 pursuant to G.S. \u00a7 50-16.1A et seq. did not implicate for purposes of Rule 41(a)(1) the one year period within which Claim # 1 asserted under G.S. \u00a7 50-16.1 et seq. might have been refiled. See G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 41(a)(1). Rather, Claim # 2 constituted a new and distinct claim for alimony which was filed subsequent to the parties\u2019 divorce and is thereby barred. See G.S. \u00a7 50-11(c). The trial court\u2019s grant of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff thus must be reversed and this matter remanded for entry of summary judgment in favor of defendant. See N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 56(c) (1990) (when appropriate, summary judgment \u201cmay be rendered against the moving party\u201d), and Greenway v. Insurance Co., 35 N.C. App. 308, 314, 241 S.E.2d 339, 343 (1978) (\u201cG.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 56(c) does not require that a party move for summary judgment in order to be entitled to it\u201d).\nNotwithstanding, plaintiff points to Harwood v. Harrelson Ford, Inc., 78 N.C. App. 445, 337 S.E.2d 158 (1985), as requiring a contrary result. Plaintiffs reliance upon Harwood is misplaced.\nIn Harwood, this Court approved an award of prejudgment interest to three plaintiffs in actions originally filed 13 August 1980, voluntarily dismissed without prejudice 29 April 1982, and reinstituted 26 August 1982 pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1). Id. at 446, 337 S.E.2d at 159. On 5 May 1981, N.C.G.S. \u00a7 24-5 was amended so as to allow recovery of prejudgment interest upon claims such as those of the three Harwood plaintiffs; the provision became effective upon ratification 5 May 1981, but was not applicable to pending litigation. Id. at 447-48, 337 S.E.2d at 160.\nIn ruling in favor of the three plaintiffs, this Court emphasized that\n[t]he Legislature\u2019s purpose in amending G.S. 24-5 was to provide an incentive to insurance companies to expeditiously litigate actions they are involved in.\nId. at 450, 337 S.E.2d at 161-62. Moreover, we continued,\nwhen plaintiffs filed their complaint, insurance companies were aware of the legislature\u2019s expressed intent to encourage prompt resolution of lawsuits. Yet, over three years have passed since the three plaintiffs filed their lawsuit and their judgment is yet to be satisfied. We conclude that with respect to [these three] plaintiffs . . . the [trial court\u2019s award of prejudgment interest] is consistent with the legislature\u2019s intent as expressed in G.S. 24-5.\nId.\nTherefore, even assuming arguendo the amendment to G.S. \u00a7 24-5 allowing recovery of prejudgment interest created a new substantive right somehow similar to that we have held to have been effected by the \u201cwholesale revision,\u201d S. Sharp, 76 N.C.L. Rev. at 2018, of North Carolina alimony law, it is apparent the ruling in Harwood was instead primarily a pointed rebuke to the defendants\u2019 apparent disregard of the legislatively enunciated public policy \u201cto cure past delays in litigation,\u201d Harwood, 78 N.C. App. at 450, 337 S.E.2d at 161; see Webb v. Port Commission, 205 N.C. 663, 677-78, 172 S.E. 377, 384 (1934) (Clarkson, J., concurring) (\u201cpurpose and spirit of an act must be considered in its construction and its obvious intent ascertained and respected\u201d). Indeed, as noted above, we specifically cited with disapproval the delay of \u201cover three years\u201d in satisfaction of the three plaintiffs\u2019 judgments. Harwood, 78 N.C. App. at 450, 337 S.E.2d at 162.\nIn the foregoing context, it is interesting to particularize the chronological \u201chistory of litigation between the parties,\u201d Gardner, 48 N.C. App. at 46, 269 S.E.2d at 634, sub judice. The statutory revisions discussed herein were passed by the General Assembly 21 June 1995, ch. 319, 1995 N.C. Sess. Laws 641, effective 1 October 1995 except as to pending litigation and motions seeking to modify orders and judgments in effect on the date. See G.S. \u00a7 50-16.1A et seq. Defendant filed his divorce action 17 July 1995 and plaintiff initiated her alimony claim under G.S. \u00a7 50-16.1 et seq. (repealed) on 14 August 1995, almost two months following passage of the new law and but six weeks prior to the effective date thereof. The parties were divorced 11 April 1996. However, it was not until almost one year later and nearly two years following passage of the new law that plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her alimony claim under the repealed statute on 21 March 1997 and filed her action based upon the new statute approximately two weeks later on 2 April 1997. The thrust of the holding in Harwood thus runs counter to plaintiff\u2019s situation herein.\nBased upon the foregoing, the trial court\u2019s grant of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff is reversed and this case remanded for entry of summary judgment in favor of defendant.\nReversed and remanded with instructions.\nJudges TIMMONS-GOODSON and HUNTER concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JOHN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Schoch and Woodruff, L.L.P., by Carolyn J. Woodruff for plaintiff-appellee.",
      "Bell, Davis and Pitt, P.A., by Robin J. Stinson, for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "SHERYL W. BRANNOCK, Plaintiff v. TOMMY D. BRANNOCK, Defendant\nNo. COA98-1179\n(Filed 7 December 1999)\n1. Appeal and Error\u2014 preservation of issues \u2014 voluntary dismissal\nDefendant\u2019s failure to appeal did not preclude consideration of assignments of error and arguments addressed to the voluntary dismissal of a claim. While an involuntary dismissal under Rule 41(b) constitutes a discretionary action of the trial court and a party who fails to appeal such dismissal is bound thereby, a Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal emanates from a party\u2019s election to dismiss a claim and is not based upon an order or discretionary ruling of the court. It appears that any attempt by defendant to appeal plaintiff\u2019s Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal would have been ineffective because, under N.C.R. App. P. 3(a), appeal may be taken only from a judgment or order of a superior or district court.\n2. Trials; Divorce\u2014 alimony \u2014 voluntary dismissal \u2014 statutory amendment \u2014 new action\nSummary judgment should not have been granted in favor of plaintiff and should have been granted for defendant where defendant instituted a divorce action, plaintiff responded with a counterclaim seeking alimony pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 50-16.1 (since repealed), defendant asserted as an affirmative defense that plaintiff had engaged in an adulterous relationship, the parties were divorced with the judgment providing that matters pertaining to alimony were retained for a later date, plaintiff filed a voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a), plaintiff filed a new complaint seeking alimony under the new N.C.G.S. \u00a7 50-16. lA(3)a, defendant stipulated that he had committed illicit sexual behavior under that statute and plaintiff admitted that she had not \u201cremained celibate\u201d from the separation to the divorce, and the trial court granted summary judgment for plaintiff. Under the prior statute, proof that a dependent spouse (plaintiff, here) had committed adultery anytime prior to entry of divorce provided the supporting spouse (defendant, here) an absolute defense against alimony notwithstanding similar conduct by the supporting spouse, while the new statute focuses solely upon misconduct prior to separation. Considering the invalidation of a statutory absolute defense for alimony which defendant enjoyed as a vested right at the time plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her first claim for alimony and the subjection of defendant to new liability which did not previously exist, it cannot be said that the second claim constituted a new action on the same claim earlier dismissed, particularly upon viewing the entire history of the litigation between the parties. While the procedural remedy of alimony previously existed, the substantive rights of the parties are now different and the second claim constituted a new and distinct claim for alimony which is barred.\nAppeal by defendant from summary judgment entered 25 June 1998 by Judge A. Moses Massey in Surry County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 12 May 1999.\nSchoch and Woodruff, L.L.P., by Carolyn J. Woodruff for plaintiff-appellee.\nBell, Davis and Pitt, P.A., by Robin J. Stinson, for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0635-01",
  "first_page_order": 669,
  "last_page_order": 682
}