{ "id": 9188416, "name": "DAVID KEITH EVANS, Plaintiff v. ANGELA CARTER EVANS, Defendant", "name_abbreviation": "Evans v. Evans", "decision_date": "2003-06-17", "docket_number": "No. COA02-933", "first_page": "533", "last_page": "536", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "158 N.C. App. 533" } ], "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": "265 S.E.2d 387", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "299 N.C. 731", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8575864 ], "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/299/0731-01" ] }, { "cite": "240 S.E.2d 338", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "340" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "294 N.C. 200", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8572343 ], "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "201" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/294/0200-01" ] }, { "cite": "261 S.E.2d 908", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "914", "parenthetical": "citing Waters v. Personnel, Inc., 294 N.C. 200, 201, 240 S.E.2d 338, 340 (1978), opinion certified on rehearing, 299 N.C. 731, 265 S.E.2d 387 (1980)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "299 N.C. 351", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8575088 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "360", "parenthetical": "citing Waters v. Personnel, Inc., 294 N.C. 200, 201, 240 S.E.2d 338, 340 (1978), opinion certified on rehearing, 299 N.C. 731, 265 S.E.2d 387 (1980)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/299/0351-01" ] }, { "cite": "299 S.E.2d 777", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "780-81" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "60 N.C. App. 331", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8520808 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "335" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/60/0331-01" ] }, { "cite": "526 S.E.2d 666", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "670", "parenthetical": "quoting Blackwelder v. Dept. of Human Resources, 60 N.C. App. 331, 335, 299 S.E.2d 777, 780-81 (1983), and Jeffreys v. Raleigh Oaks Joint Venture, 115 N.C. App. 377, 380, 444 S.E.2d 252, 254 (1994)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "137 N.C. App. 138", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11092295 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "142", "parenthetical": "quoting Blackwelder v. Dept. of Human Resources, 60 N.C. App. 331, 335, 299 S.E.2d 777, 780-81 (1983), and Jeffreys v. Raleigh Oaks Joint Venture, 115 N.C. App. 377, 380, 444 S.E.2d 252, 254 (1994)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/137/0138-01" ] }, { "cite": "548 S.E.2d 527", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "353 N.C. 452", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 135974, 135980, 135596, 135797, 135800 ], "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/353/0452-02", "/nc/353/0452-03", "/nc/353/0452-01", "/nc/353/0452-05", "/nc/353/0452-04" ] }, { "cite": "542 S.E.2d 227", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "142 N.C. App. 48", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9439459 ], "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/142/0048-01" ] }, { "cite": "566 S.E.2d 801", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "803" }, { "page": "804" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "151 N.C. App. 622", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9081673 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "624" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/151/0622-01" ] }, { "cite": "370 S.E.2d 76", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "78" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "90 N.C. App. 738", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526098 ], "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "740" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/90/0738-01" ] }, { "cite": "444 S.E.2d 252", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "253", "parenthetical": "quoting Rule 54(b)" }, { "page": "254" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "115 N.C. App. 377", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 12129791 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "379", "parenthetical": "quoting Rule 54(b)" }, { "page": "380" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/115/0377-01" ] }, { "cite": "270 S.E.2d 431", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "434" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "301 N.C. 205", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564716 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "209" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/301/0205-01" ] }, { "cite": "545 S.E.2d 259", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "261-62", "parenthetical": "quoting Bailey v. Gooding, 301 N.C. 205, 209, 270 S.E.2d 431, 434 (1980)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "143 N.C. App. 162", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11433839 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "165", "parenthetical": "quoting Bailey v. Gooding, 301 N.C. 205, 209, 270 S.E.2d 431, 434 (1980)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/143/0162-01" ] }, { "cite": "561 S.E.2d 511", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "513" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "149 N.C. App. 475", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9129209 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "477" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/149/0475-01" ] }, { "cite": "57 S.E.2d 375", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1950, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "381" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "231 N.C. 354", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8629801 ], "year": 1950, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "361-62" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/231/0354-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 468, "char_count": 7274, "ocr_confidence": 0.749, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.6915824997451883e-07, "percentile": 0.6993087241765833 }, "sha256": "4ed44ed6b83b21d94afe0bf945582ed0b3998574adc97748f955ee7b87192e8a", "simhash": "1:0fc9e463480f286e", "word_count": 1181 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:16:33.883812+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges McGEE and McCULLOUGH concur." ], "parties": [ "DAVID KEITH EVANS, Plaintiff v. ANGELA CARTER EVANS, Defendant" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "LEVINSON, Judge.\nDefendant (Angela Evans) appeals from an order entered 18 December 2001. We conclude that defendant\u2019s appeal is premature and should be dismissed.\nThe parties were married 11 February 1989, and separated in February, 2001. Two children were born of the marriage. On 13 February 2001, plaintiff (David Evans) filed a complaint for divorce from bed and board, child custody, writ of possession of the marital home, equitable distribution, and attorney\u2019s fees. Defendant filed a counterclaim on 20 February 2001, seeking divorce from bed and board, child custody, child support, alimony and post separation support, equitable distribution, possession of the marital home, dismissal of plaintiff\u2019s complaint, and attorney\u2019s fees. On 18 December 2001 the trial court entered an order awarding plaintiff a divorce from bed and board; denying defendant\u2019s motion for post-separation support; .granting the parties joint legal custody of their minor children, with the children\u2019s primary residence to be with plaintiff; and ordering that defendant pay $379.80 per month child support. From this order defendant appeals.\nAn order \u201cis either interlocutory or the final determination of the rights of the parties.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 54(a) (2001). A final judgment \u201cdisposes of the cause as to all the parties, leaving nothing to be judicially determined between them in the trial court[,]\u201d while an interlocutory order \u201cdoes 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. Durham, 231 N.C. 354, 361-62, 57 S.E.2d 375, 381 (1950). In the present case, the trial court\u2019s order did not resolve the parties\u2019 respective claims for equitable distribution and for attorney\u2019s fees, and did not rule on defendant\u2019s claim for alimony. We conclude that the order from which defendant appeals was interlocutory.\nIn general, \u201cthere is no right to immediate appeal from an interlocutory order.\u201d Flitt v. Flitt, 149 N.C. App. 475, 477, 561 S.E.2d 511, 513 (2002); N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 54(b) (2001). \u201cThis rule is grounded in sound policy considerations. Its goal is to \u2018prevent fragmentary and premature appeals that unnecessarily delay the administration of justice and to ensure that the trial divisions fully and finally dispose of the case before an appeal can be heard.\u2019 \u201d Embler v. Embler, 143 N.C. App. 162, 165, 545 S.E.2d 259, 261-62 (2001) (quoting Bailey v. Gooding, 301 N.C. 205, 209, 270 S.E.2d 431, 434 (1980)). However, there are two significant exceptions to this rule. First, an interlocutory order is immediately appealable \u201cwhen the trial court enters \u2018a final 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 v. Raleigh Oaks Joint Venture, 115 N.C. App. 377, 379, 444 S.E.2d 252, 253 (1994) (quoting Rule 54(b)). Secondly, an interlocutory order may be immediately appealed if \u201cthe order deprives the appellant of a substantial right which would be jeopardized absent a review prior to a final determination on the merits.\u201d Southern Uniform Rentals v. Iowa Nat\u2019l Mutual Ins. Co., 90 N.C. App. 738, 740, 370 S.E.2d 76, 78 (1988); N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1-277(a) (2001); N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-27(d) (2001).\nIn the instant case, the trial court did not certify its order for immediate review. See Rule 5A(b). Therefore, we next consider whether \u201cthe challenged order affects a substantial right that may be lost without immediate review.\u201d McConnell v. McConnell, 151 N.C. App. 622, 624, 566 S.E.2d 801, 803 (2002). \u201cWhether an interlocutory appeal affects a substantial right is determined on a case by case basis.\u201d Id. at 625, 566 S.E.2d at 803 (citing McCallum v. N.C. Coop. Extensive Serv., 142 N.C. App. 48, 542 S.E.2d 227, disc. review denied, 353 N.C. 452, 548 S.E.2d 527 (2001)). This Court has previously held that:\nA substantial right is \u2018one which will clearly be lost or irremediably adversely affected if the order is not reviewable before final judgment.\u2019 The right to immediate appeal is \u2018reserved for those cases in which the normal course of procedure is inadequate to protect the substantial right affected by the order sought to be appealed.\u2019 Our courts have generally taken a restrictive view of the substantial right exception. The burden is on the appealing party to establish that a substantial right will be affected.\nTurner v. Norfolk S. Corp., 137 N.C. App. 138, 142, 526 S.E.2d 666, 670 (2000) (quoting Blackwelder v. Dept. of Human Resources, 60 N.C. App. 331, 335, 299 S.E.2d 777, 780-81 (1983), and Jeffreys v. Raleigh Oaks Joint Venture, 115 N.C. App. 377, 380, 444 S.E.2d 252, 254 (1994)). Defendant cites McConnell v. McConnell, 151 N.C. App. 622, 566 S.E.2d 801 (2002), in support of her contention that an immediate appeal is proper. However, in McConnell this Court specifically concluded that immediate review was warranted because \u201cthe physical well being of the child [was] at issue[.]\u201d Id. at 625, 566 S.E.2d at 804. Thus, McConnell does not support the proposition that all orders for child custody are immediately appealable. In the case sub judice, defendant alleges only that as a result of the court\u2019s custody order \u201cthe children\u2019s lives changed immediately[,]\u201d a truism which would apply to many custody orders. Defendant has not argued that any substantial right will be lost without immediate appeal, and we discern none. The record contains no intimation that the children\u2019s health or safety is in jeopardy, or that irreparable harm will be caused by delaying the appeal until final resolution of the case.\n\u201cWhere an appealing party has no right to appeal, an appellate court should on its own motion dismiss the appeal even though the question of appealability has not been raised by the parties themselves.\u201d State v. School, 299 N.C. 351, 360, 261 S.E.2d 908, 914 (1980) (citing Waters v. Personnel, Inc., 294 N.C. 200, 201, 240 S.E.2d 338, 340 (1978), opinion certified on rehearing, 299 N.C. 731, 265 S.E.2d 387 (1980)). We conclude that defendant has appealed from an interlocutory order, which does not affect a substantial right, and from which there is no right to immediate appeal. Accordingly, defendant\u2019s appeal is\nDismissed.\nJudges McGEE and McCULLOUGH concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "LEVINSON, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Currin & Dutra, L.L.P., by Thomas L. Currin and Lori A. Dutra, for plaintiff-appellee.", "The Sandlin Law Firm, by Deborah Sandlin and John Patrick McNeil, for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "DAVID KEITH EVANS, Plaintiff v. ANGELA CARTER EVANS, Defendant\nNo. COA02-933\n(Filed 17 June 2003)\nAppeal and Error\u2014 appealability \u2014 domestic order \u2014 change of custody \u2014 not the loss of a substantial right\nThe allegation that a custody order changed the children\u2019s lives immediately was not sufficient to establish the loss of a substantial right and avoid dismissal of an appeal as interlocutory. The record contains no intimation that the children\u2019s health or safety is in jeopardy or that irreparable harm would be caused by delaying the appeal until the final resolution of the case.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment entered 18 December 2001 by Judge Charles W. Wilkinson in Granville County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 24 April 2003.\nCurrin & Dutra, L.L.P., by Thomas L. Currin and Lori A. Dutra, for plaintiff-appellee.\nThe Sandlin Law Firm, by Deborah Sandlin and John Patrick McNeil, for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0533-01", "first_page_order": 563, "last_page_order": 566 }