{
  "id": 8551715,
  "name": "SARA TUTTEROW POTTS v. JAMES MELVIN POTTS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Potts v. Potts",
  "decision_date": "1973-08-08",
  "docket_number": "No. 7319DC279",
  "first_page": "193",
  "last_page": "195",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "19 N.C. App. 193"
    }
  ],
  "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": 218,
    "char_count": 3878,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.562,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0997720922370316e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5679919949000888
    },
    "sha256": "d43327ea6b64096a5427cccd50e3f1ecd15d39ef4d8b35caa6e0836b2e348012",
    "simhash": "1:a4efc0b4770a98f1",
    "word_count": 642
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:32:34.966448+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges VAUGHN and Baley concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "SARA TUTTEROW POTTS v. JAMES MELVIN POTTS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BROCK, Judge.\nDefendant assigns as error that the facts found by Judge Warren are not supported by the evidence.\nThe order appealed from recites: \u201cThe Court, after hearing evidence and testimony in this cause from the plaintiff, finds the following facts.\u201d It appears from the foregoing recitation that an evidentiary hearing was conducted by Judge Warren; however, appellant has failed to include the evidence in the record on appeal. Appellant did file five sheets of paper each of which is marked substantially as follows: \u201cDesignated plaintiff\u2019s exhibit # _presumably offered and accepted into evidence at hearing on November 14, 1972.\u201d (Emphasis added.) The source of relevancy of these five sheets of paper is not clear and they will not be considered.\nWhere there is evidence offered before the trial court and appellant assigns as error that the evidence does not support the findings of fact by the trial judge, but does not include the evidence in the record on appeal, we will presume the facts found are supported by competent evidence.\nDefendant assigns as error that the hearing was conducted in the absence of defendant and his counsel. The record reflects that the hearing on plaintiff\u2019s motion had been continued at defendant\u2019s request and was set for a day certain. Defendant and his counsel were well aware of the date set. Counsel apparently had another conflict and requested a further continuance. The trial court delayed the hearing for a part of the day to accommodate defense counsel, but when the matter was again reached the trial court proceeded to hear, the plaintiff\u2019s evidence. Under the circumstances disclosed by this record defendant has failed to show an abuse of discretion.\nAffirmed.\nJudges VAUGHN and Baley concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BROCK, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert V. Somers, for the plaintiff.",
      "Olive, Howard, Downer, Williams & Price, by Paul J. Williams, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "SARA TUTTEROW POTTS v. JAMES MELVIN POTTS\nNo. 7319DC279\n(Filed 8 August 1973)\n1. Appeal and Error \u00a7 57\u2014 assignment of error to findings of fact \u2014 no evidence included in record on appeal\nWhere there was evidence offered before the trial court at a hearing on plaintiff\u2019s motion to increase the amount of support payments required of defendant and defendant assigned as error that the evidence did not support the findings of fact by the trial judge, but did not include the evidence in the record on appeal, it is presumed that the facts found were supported by competent evidence.\n2. Divorce and Alimony \u00a7 23\u2014 increase in support \u2014 hearing in defendant\u2019s absence \u2014 no error\nTrial court did not err in conducting a hearing on plaintiff\u2019s motion to increase the amount of support payments due from defendant in the absence of defendant and his counsel where the hearing had previously been continued at defendant\u2019s request and then, on the day set, was continued for part of the day to accommodate defense counsel who had another conflict.\nAppeal by defendant from Warren, District Judge, 13 November 1972 Session of District Court held in Rowan County.\nThis cause was commenced on 2 February 1968 as an action for absolute divorce. A decree of absolute divorce was entered on 11 March 1968, and on the same day, by separate order in the cause, an order was entered awarding custody of two minor children to plaintiff and requiring defendant to make certain periodic payments for their support. The amount of the support payments was increased upon motion in the cause on 16 March 1970. On 27 October 1972 a motion in the cause was filed to obtain an order further increasing the amount of support payments the defendant is required to make. A hearing was held, without the presence of defendant and his counsel, in district court on 14 November 1972, following which an order was entered increasing the periodic support payments the defendant is required to make. Defendant appealed from this latter order.\nRobert V. Somers, for the plaintiff.\nOlive, Howard, Downer, Williams & Price, by Paul J. Williams, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0193-01",
  "first_page_order": 217,
  "last_page_order": 219
}