{
  "id": 8468999,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA by and through the Albemarle Child Support Enforcement Agency, ex rel., ZITA Y. CROSS, Plaintiff v. MAURICE L. SAUNDERS, Defendant",
  "name_abbreviation": "State ex rel. Albemarle Child Support Enforcement Agency ex rel. Cross v. Saunders",
  "decision_date": "2005-01-18",
  "docket_number": "No. COA04-30",
  "first_page": "235",
  "last_page": "237",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "168 N.C. App. 235"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 276,
    "char_count": 4877,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.741,
    "sha256": "149d895b25816beadbd83d0bf0c644718a4295c4bb8e07b55d8df95273411376",
    "simhash": "1:cb37426e464b0636",
    "word_count": 771
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:36:09.557360+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge GEER concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA by and through the Albemarle Child Support Enforcement Agency, ex rel., ZITA Y. CROSS, Plaintiff v. MAURICE L. SAUNDERS, Defendant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "CALABRIA, Judge.\nThe State of North Carolina by and through the Albemarle Child Support Enforcement Agency ex rel. Zita Y. Cross (\u201cplaintiff\u2019) appeals an order of the Gates County District Court modifying a previous child support order upon finding a substantial and material change in circumstances. We reverse.\nOn 25 May 1995, Maurice L. Saunders (\u201cdefendant\u201d) signed a voluntary support agreement certifying paternity and responsibility for D.A.S., a minor child in Cross\u2019 custody. The agreement was subsequently approved by and became an order of the court. Defendant was ordered to repay, in monthly installments of $20.00, the sum of $924.00 owed as reimbursement for past public assistance for his dependent child; however, no ongoing child support was imposed. Defendant fulfilled this obligation in June 1997, and defendant\u2019s file was closed the following month with a notation that all arrearages were paid in full.\nOn 24 September 2002, plaintiff moved to modify the existing child support order to seek ongoing child support. The matter was heard on 11 December 2002. The trial court ordered, inter alia, monthly child support in the amount of $391.00 as determined by completion of the worksheet contained in the North Carolina Child Support Guidelines (the \u201cGuidelines\u201d) after concluding there was a substantial and material change in circumstances (\u201cchanged circumstances\u201d) in that the needs of the minor child had increased since entry of the prior child support order. The order was signed on 3 April 2003.\nOn 10 April 2003, defendant moved to modify the existing child support order, seeking a reduction in his child support obligation. Defendant cited changed circumstances because of the birth of a new child on 9 April 2003. The trial court granted defendant\u2019s motion on that basis. Plaintiff appeals.\nOn appeal, plaintiff asserts the trial court \u201cerred when it concluded, based on the single fact that [defendant] had a newborn child in his home, that a significant and material change of circumstances had occurred.\u201d We agree. North Carolina General Statutes \u00a7 50-13.7 (2003) provides that a child support order \u201cmay be modified or vacated at any time, upon motion in the cause and a showing of changed circumstances[.]\u201d The Guidelines expressly provide as follows:\nA parent\u2019s financial responsibility (as determined below) for his or her natural or adopted children who currently reside with the parent (other than children for whom child support is being determined in the pending action) is deducted from the parent\u2019s gross income. Use of this deduction is appropriate when a child support order is entered or modified, but may not be the sole basis for modifying an existing order.\n2004 Ann. R. N.C. 50 (emphasis added). In the instant case, the trial court found as fact, relevant to the conclusions of law, that defendant filed a motion to modify the existing child support order on the grounds that he had a newborn child. The trial court concluded, in relevant part, as follows:\n3. There was a substantial and material change in circumstances since entry of the April 3, 2003 Order in that the defendant now has a newborn child in his home for whom he has financial responsibility.\n4. As a result of the change in circumstances, defendant is entitled to modify the April 3, 2003 Order.\nThe trial court\u2019s findings and conclusions contravened the Guidelines by equating defendant\u2019s financial responsibility to his newborn child, standing alone, with changed circumstances. Accord Lee\u2019s North Carolina Family Law \u00a7 10.55(a) (5th rev. ed. 2002). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court\u2019s modification of the existing child support order. We need not reach plaintiff\u2019s remaining assignments of error.\nReversed.\nChief Judge MARTIN and Judge GEER concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "CALABRIA, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Brenda Eaddy, for the State.",
      "No brief filed for defendant-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA by and through the Albemarle Child Support Enforcement Agency, ex rel., ZITA Y. CROSS, Plaintiff v. MAURICE L. SAUNDERS, Defendant\nNo. COA04-30\n(Filed 18 January 2005)\nChild Support, Custody, and Visitation\u2014 child support modification \u2014 change in circumstances \u2014 newborn child\nThe trial court erred in a child support modification case by concluding that a significant and material change in circumstances had occurred, because: (1) N.C.G.S. \u00a7 50-13.7 provides that a child support order may be modified or vacated at any time upon motion in the cause and a showing of changed circumstances; and (2) the trial court\u2019s findings and conclusions contravened the guidelines by equating defendant\u2019s financial responsibility to his newborn child, standing alone, with changed circumstances.\nAppeal by plaintiff from order entered 6 October 2003 by Judge C. Christopher Bean in Gates County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 6 December 2004.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Brenda Eaddy, for the State.\nNo brief filed for defendant-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0235-01",
  "first_page_order": 265,
  "last_page_order": 267
}