{
  "id": 9364859,
  "name": "CRAIG WASHINGTON, Plaintiff v. SHARON WASHINGTON, Defendant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Washington v. Washington",
  "decision_date": "2001-12-28",
  "docket_number": "No. COA01-250",
  "first_page": "206",
  "last_page": "208",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "148 N.C. App. 206"
    }
  ],
  "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": "214 S.E.2d 431",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "287 N.C. 259",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561763,
        8561732,
        8561671,
        8561712,
        8561689
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/287/0259-05",
        "/nc/287/0259-04",
        "/nc/287/0259-01",
        "/nc/287/0259-03",
        "/nc/287/0259-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "212 S.E.2d 234",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "236"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "25 N.C. App. 99",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8550898
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "101-02"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/25/0099-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 50-7",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "502 S.E.2d 879",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "881",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "130 N.C. App. 332",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11467465
      ],
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "334",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/130/0332-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "437 S.E.2d 674",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "677"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "113 N.C. App. 19",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8520479
      ],
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "23"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/113/0019-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "511 S.E.2d 309",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "311"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "132 N.C. App. 341",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11237793
      ],
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "344"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/132/0341-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "444 S.E.2d 252",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "253"
        },
        {
          "page": "253",
          "parenthetical": "quoting N.C. R. Civ. P. 54(b"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "115 N.C. App. 377",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        12129791
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "379"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/115/0377-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "551 S.E.2d 924",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "926",
          "parenthetical": "citing Jeffreys v. Raleigh Oaks Joint Venture, 115 N.C. App. 377, 379, 444 S.E.2d 252, 253 (1994)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "146 N.C. App. 297",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11356577
      ],
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "298",
          "parenthetical": "citing Jeffreys v. Raleigh Oaks Joint Venture, 115 N.C. App. 377, 379, 444 S.E.2d 252, 253 (1994)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/146/0297-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "57 S.E.2d 377",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1950,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "381",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "231 N.C. 357",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8629835
      ],
      "year": 1950,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "361-62",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/231/0357-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "240 S.E.2d 338",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1978,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "340",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "294 N.C. 200",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8572343
      ],
      "year": 1978,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "201",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/294/0200-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 341,
    "char_count": 5455,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.765,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.953181076708474e-08,
      "percentile": 0.42163037304491496
    },
    "sha256": "7a56a9a01141769b7e1db76cbe712a58ff73e32a54ae46371734a3cb37a0c6a9",
    "simhash": "1:0d40cc2774ce2d5c",
    "word_count": 893
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:14:25.013425+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges TIMMONS-GOODSON and HUDSON concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "CRAIG WASHINGTON, Plaintiff v. SHARON WASHINGTON, Defendant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "TYSON, Judge.\nSharon Washington (\u201cdefendant\u201d) appeals from an order granting Craig Washington (\u201cplaintiff\u2019) a divorce from bed and board. We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory.\nI. Facts\nPlaintiff and defendant were married on 28 May 1988. Two minor children were bom of the marriage.\nOn 23 January 2000, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant for divorce from bed and board on multiple grounds, child custody, and child support. Defendant answered and counterclaimed for divorce from bed and board, post-separation support, alimony, child custody, and child support. The trial court heard the case on 20 July 2000.\nOn 3 August 2000, the trial court granted plaintiffs claim for divorce from bed and board based on indignities he suffered as a result of defendant\u2019s spendthrift behavior, and dismissed plaintiffs other grounds for divorce from bed and board. The trial court also granted defendant\u2019s claim for divorce from bed and board based upon constructive abandonment and dismissed defendant\u2019s other grounds for divorce from bed and board. Plaintiff\u2019s and defendant\u2019s remaining issues concerning child custody, child support, alimony, and post separation support were not resolved in the order. Defendant only appeals from the trial court\u2019s grant of divorce from bed and board for plaintiff.\nDefendant assigns as error the trial court\u2019s failure to grant her motion to dismiss arguing that the findings of fact do not support its conclusions of law, and that the conclusions of law do not entitle plaintiff to a divorce from bed and board. We do not reach defendant\u2019s contentions. The order she appeals from is interlocutory.\nWe note at the outset that neither party addressed the issue of defendant\u2019s right of appeal. \u201cIf an appealing party has no right of appeal, an appellate court on its own motion should dismiss the appeal even though the question of appealability has not been raised by the parties themselves.\u201d Waters v. Qualified Personnel, Inc., 294 N.C. 200, 201, 240 S.E.2d 338, 340 (1978) (citations omitted) (emphasis supplied).\nA judgment or order is \u201ceither interlocutory or the final determination of the rights of the parties.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, 54(a) (1967). \u201cA final judgment is one which disposes of the case as to all the parties, leaving nothing to be judicially determined between them in the trial court.... An interlocutory order . . . does not dispose of the case, but leaves it for further action by the trial court in order to settle and determine the entire controversy.\u201d Veazey v. City of Durham, 231 N.C. 357, 361-62, 57 S.E.2d 377, 381 (1950) (citations omitted).\nThe general rule is that \u201cthere is no right to appeal from an interlocutory order.\u201d Mills Pointe Homeowner\u2019s Assoc., Inc. v. Whitmire, 146 N.C. App. 297, 298, 551 S.E.2d 924, 926 (September 18, 2001) (citing Jeffreys v. Raleigh Oaks Joint Venture, 115 N.C. App. 377, 379, 444 S.E.2d 252, 253 (1994)); Hudson-Cole Dev. Corp. v. Beemer, 132 N.C. App. 341, 344, 511 S.E.2d 309, 311 (1999). There are two exceptions: (1) a \u201c \u2018final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties\u2019 and the trial court certifies in the judgment that there is no just reason to delay the appeal,\u201d Jeffreys, at 379, 444 S.E.2d at 253 (quoting N.C. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Liggett Group, Inc. v. Sunas, 113 N.C. App. 19, 23, 437 S.E.2d 674, 677 (1993)), and (2) when delay would irreparably affect a substantial right. Abe v. Westview Capital, 130 N.C. App. 332, 334, 502 S.E.2d 879, 881 (1998) (citations omitted).\nOur Court has held that a divorce from bed and board pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 50-7 (1985) is a final order. Kale v. Kale, 25 N.C. App. 99, 101-02, 212 S.E.2d 234, 236, cert. denied, 287 N.C. 259, 214 S.E.2d 431 (1975). At bar, the parties raised numerous additional issues at trial regarding custody and support matters. Although orders granting divorce from bed and board are final orders, the language in this order explicitly provides that \u201c[t]he issue of custody was deferred until the parties have had the opportunity to participate in mediation.\u201d This order is not a final judicial determination of all the claims raised in the pleadings. The trial court did not certify this order for appeal, and defendant has not argued that delay would affect a substantial right. We dismiss defendant\u2019s appeal.\nAppeal dismissed.\nJudges TIMMONS-GOODSON and HUDSON concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "TYSON, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "No brief filed, for plaintiff-appellee.",
      "Mamite Shuford, for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CRAIG WASHINGTON, Plaintiff v. SHARON WASHINGTON, Defendant\nNo. COA01-250\n(Filed 28 December 2001)\nAppeal and Error\u2014 appealability \u2014 divorce from bed and board \u2014 child custody deferred \u2014 interlocutory order\nA defendant\u2019s appeal from a judgment granting a divorce from bed and board is dismissed as an appeal from an interlocutory order, because: (1) although orders granting divorce from bed and board are final orders, the language in this order explicitly provides that the issue of child custody was deferred until the parties have had the opportunity to participate in mediation; (2) this order is not a final judicial determination of all the claims raised in the pleadings; and (3) the trial court did not certify this order for appeal, and defendant has not argued that delay would affect a substantial right.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment entered 4 August 2000 by Judge Jane V. Harper in Mecklenburg County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 5 December 2001.\nNo brief filed, for plaintiff-appellee.\nMamite Shuford, for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0206-01",
  "first_page_order": 236,
  "last_page_order": 238
}