{
  "id": 4176445,
  "name": "SARAH CYNTHIA MUSICK, Plaintiff v. JOHN DAVID MUSICK, Defendant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Musick v. Musick",
  "decision_date": "2010-04-06",
  "docket_number": "No. COA09-557",
  "first_page": "368",
  "last_page": "371",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "203 N.C. App. 368"
    }
  ],
  "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": "631 S.E.2d 114",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12636049
      ],
      "year": 2006,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "120"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/631/0114-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "623 S.E.2d 828",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12634754
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2006,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "831",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Veazey v. Durham, 231 N.C. 357, 361-62, 57 S.E.2d 377, 381 (1950)"
        },
        {
          "page": "831"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/623/0828-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "360 N.C. 518",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        3795905
      ],
      "year": 2006,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "526"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/360/0518-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "277 S.E.2d 115",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1981,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "117"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "51 N.C. App. 545",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2645181
      ],
      "year": 1981,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "548"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/51/0545-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "642 S.E.2d 527",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2007,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "530",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Town of Sylva v. Gibson, 51 N.C. App. 545, 548, 277 S.E.2d 115, 117 (1981)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "182 N.C. App. 456",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8173006
      ],
      "year": 2007,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "460",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Town of Sylva v. Gibson, 51 N.C. App. 545, 548, 277 S.E.2d 115, 117 (1981)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/182/0456-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "545 S.E.2d 259",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 5,
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "261"
        },
        {
          "page": "262",
          "parenthetical": "internal quotations and citation omitted"
        },
        {
          "page": "262",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        },
        {
          "page": "262"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "143 N.C. App. 162",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11433839
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "165"
        },
        {
          "page": "165"
        },
        {
          "page": "166"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/143/0162-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "57 S.E.2d 377",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1950,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "381"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "231 N.C. 357",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8629835
      ],
      "year": 1950,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "361-62"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/231/0357-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "175 N.C. App. 558",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8352703
      ],
      "year": 2006,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "561-62",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Veazey v. Durham, 231 N.C. 357, 361-62, 57 S.E.2d 377, 381 (1950)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/175/0558-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "677 S.E.2d 462",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2009,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "463",
          "parenthetical": "internal quotations, citations and brackets omitted"
        },
        {
          "page": "464-65",
          "parenthetical": "trial court's order awarding permanent alimony but leaving open another pending issue is interlocutory and does not affect a substantial right"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 394,
    "char_count": 7329,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.751,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.812650139612563e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5330851335348122
    },
    "sha256": "d53b2a857556ce0dd1bc457a95e16269ff2e487c7a4beca9fd6288979724fd01",
    "simhash": "1:cba9f7dc44af04f6",
    "word_count": 1185
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:32:21.116750+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges HUNTER, Robert C. and GEER concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "SARAH CYNTHIA MUSICK, Plaintiff v. JOHN DAVID MUSICK, Defendant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "CALABRIA, Judge.\nJohn David Musick (\u201cdefendant\u201d) appeals an order denying his motions for a new trial and for relief from judgment or order brought pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rules 59(a) and 60 (2007). We dismiss defendant\u2019s appeal as interlocutory.\nOn 3 May 2005, Sarah Cynthia Musick (\u201cplaintiff\u201d) filed an action in Gaston County, North Carolina, seeking, inter alia, post-separation support (\u201cPSS\u201d), permanent alimony and equitable distribution. On 17 May 2006, plaintiff and defendant entered into a mediated settlement agreement in which defendant agreed to pay plaintiff monthly PSS in the amount of $1,600.00. On 8 December 2006, plaintiff moved for a forensic accounting of the assets of defendant\u2019s company. On 3 May 2007, the trial court entered a consent order granting plaintiff access to defendant\u2019s personal and business financial records.\nOn 4 March 2008, the trial court entered a pre-trial order setting forth the issues of alimony and equitable distribution to be heard during the week of 26 May 2008. However, the case-was not heard until the week of 3 September 2008. The trial court, over defendant\u2019s objection, continued the matter of equitable distribution and proceeded to hear plaintiff\u2019s alimony claim. Following the hearing, the trial court concluded that plaintiff was a dependent spouse, defendant was a supporting spouse, and ordered defendant to pay plaintiff monthly alimony in the amount of $3,500.00. Plaintiff\u2019s claim for attorney\u2019s fees was to be heard at a later date.\nIn a letter dated 5 September 2008 to defendant\u2019s counsel, the trial court requested a response regarding any objections, requests for additions, or corrections to a proposed permanent alimony order. The trial court gave defendant\u2019s counsel fourteen days to respond. On 15 September 2008, the trial court ordered defendant to pay $3,500.00 in monthly alimony as well as $9,240.00 for attorney\u2019s fees. The order specifically reserved the parties\u2019 equitable distribution claims for a later hearing.\nOn 23 September 2008, defendant moved for a new trial pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 59 (a)(1), (7), and (9) (2007) (\u201cRule 59\u201d) and moved for relief from the order requiring him to pay plaintiff\u2019s attorney\u2019s fees, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 60(b)(1) and (6) (2007) (\u201cRule 60\u201d). On that day, defendant also filed a notice of Objection and Exception to the permanent alimony order. On 14 January 2009, the trial court denied defendant\u2019s motions. Defendant appeals.\nDefendant argues the trial court erred in denying his Rule 59 motion for a new trial and his motion for relief from judgment or order brought pursuant to Rule 60. The threshold issue to be addressed is whether defendant\u2019s appeal is premature.\n\u201cAlthough the parties have not raised this issue, whether an appeal is interlocutory presents a jurisdictional issue, and this Court has an obligation to address the issue sua sponte.\u201d Webb v. Webb, - N.C. App. -, -, 677 S.E.2d 462, 463 (2009) (internal quotations, citations and brackets omitted). \u201cAn interlocutory order is one made during the pendency of an action, which 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 McIntyre v. McIntyre, 175 N.C. App. 558, 561-62, 623 S.E.2d 828, 831 (2006) (quoting Veazey v. Durham, 231 N.C. 357, 361-62, 57 S.E.2d 377, 381 (1950)).\nWhile a final judgment is always appealable, an interlocutory order may be appealed immediately only if (i) the trial court certifies the case for immediate appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 54(b), or (ii) the order \u201caffects a substantial right of the appellant that would be lost without immediate review.\u201d\nId. at 562, 623 S.E.2d at 831 (quoting Embler v. Embler, 143 N.C. App. 162, 165, 545 S.E.2d 259, 261 (2001)). The trial court did not certify the order pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 54(b). Therefore, defendant\u2019s right to an immediate appeal, if one exists, depends on whether the trial court\u2019s order denying his motions affects a substantial right.\n\u201cA substantial right is one which will clearly be lost or irremediably adversely affected if the order is not reviewable before final judgment.\u201d Embler, 143 N.C. App. at 165, 545 S.E.2d at 262 (internal quotations and citation omitted). \u201cWhether an interlocutory appeal affects a substantial right is determined on a case by case basis.\u201d Id. at 166, 545 S.E.2d at 262 (citation omitted).\nThe decisions of our Courts make clear that an appeal of an equitable distribution order that explicitly leaves open the issue of alimony does not affect a substantial right because \u201c[ijnterlocutory appeals that challenge only the financial repercussions of a separation or divorce generally have not been held to affect a substantial right.\u201d Id. (citations omitted). See also Webb, - N.C. App. at -, 677 S.E.2d at 464-65 (trial court\u2019s order awarding permanent alimony but leaving open another pending issue is interlocutory and does not affect a substantial right). Since the permanent alimony order affects only the financial repercussions of the parties\u2019 divorce, denying defendant\u2019s Rule 59 and 60 motions and proceeding with the equitable distribution hearing will not cause his rights to clearly be lost or irremediably affected. Embler, 143 N.C. App. at 166, 545 S.E.2d at 262. Therefore, plaintiff\u2019s appeal of the permanent alimony order is not properly before us.\nWe note that defendant did not appeal from the permanent alimony order, but instead appealed from the order denying his Rule 59 and 60 motions. However, \u201c[i]t is settled law that erroneous judgments may be corrected only by appeal[.]\u201d McKyer v. McKyer, 182 N.C. App. 456, 460, 642 S.E.2d 527, 530 (2007) (quoting Town of Sylva v. Gibson, 51 N.C. App. 545, 548, 277 S.E.2d 115, 117 (1981)). Neither a Rule 59 motion nor a Rule 60 motion may be used as a substitute for an appeal. Davis v. Davis, 360 N.C. 518, 526, 631 S.E.2d 114, 120 (2006). The denial of defendant\u2019s Rule 59 and 60 motions does not alter the interlocutory nature of the underlying permanent alimony order.\nAccordingly, because defendant will not lose a substantial right if the permanent alimony order is not reviewed before final judgment, we hold that his appeal is premature, and therefore dismiss his appeal as interlocutory.\nDismissed.\nJudges HUNTER, Robert C. and GEER concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "CALABRIA, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Carpenter & Carpenter, P.L.L.C., by James R. Carpenter, for plaintiff-appellee.",
      "Deaton, Diggers & Hoza, P.L.L.C., by Lydia A. Hoza, for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "SARAH CYNTHIA MUSICK, Plaintiff v. JOHN DAVID MUSICK, Defendant\nNo. COA09-557\n(Filed 6 April 2010)\nAppeal and Error\u2014 interlocutory order \u2014 failure to show substantial right\nDefendant\u2019s appeal from an interlocutory order denying his motions for a new trial and for relief from judgment or order brought under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rules 59(a) and 60 in a divorce case appeal was dismissed. Defendant would not lose a substantial right if the permanent alimony order was not reviewed before final judgment on the equitable distribution claim since it affected only the financial repercussions of the parties\u2019 divorce.\nAppeal by defendant from order entered 14 January 2009 by Jiidge Thomas G. Taylor in Gaston County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 28 October 2009.\nCarpenter & Carpenter, P.L.L.C., by James R. Carpenter, for plaintiff-appellee.\nDeaton, Diggers & Hoza, P.L.L.C., by Lydia A. Hoza, for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0368-01",
  "first_page_order": 396,
  "last_page_order": 399
}