{
  "id": 8549553,
  "name": "CAROL BARRINGER, Petitioner v. REECE DAUGHTON BARRINGER, JR., Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "Barringer v. Barringer",
  "decision_date": "1974-12-04",
  "docket_number": "No. 7419DC817",
  "first_page": "142",
  "last_page": "143",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "24 N.C. App. 142"
    }
  ],
  "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": "113 S.E. 2d 912",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "252 N.C. 412",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8622539
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/252/0412-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 169,
    "char_count": 2485,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.578,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.921454832095468e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3698856574263596
    },
    "sha256": "33e501afa639a2930b221c53ed8bf2153f31f4bf2d746d1d37cc68cbfe065583",
    "simhash": "1:1deeecc74a41beae",
    "word_count": 401
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:54:40.635509+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Campbell and Morris concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "CAROL BARRINGER, Petitioner v. REECE DAUGHTON BARRINGER, JR., Respondent"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "VAUGHN, Judge.\nThis is a proceeding under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act. The proceeding was initiated in California when petitioner filed the complaint on behalf of three minor children of the parties. In a proceeding filed under this Act the verified complaint is admissible as prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. G.S. 52A-19.\nThe complaint in this proceeding is sufficient to establish the needs of the children but is silent as to the ability of either of the parties to provide support. The only evidence offered at trial was from respondent who testified that he had been forced to resign from the job he held in California and had been unable to obtain employment since that time. He testified that he had been promised a job unloading freight in Charlotte. The record is silent as to when that employment might start or what respondent would earn. There was no other evidence relating to respondent\u2019s estate, earnings or capacity to earn.\nFor the reasons stated the order must be reversed. The case is remanded for a hearing on respondent\u2019s ability to provide support. If the award is based on respondent\u2019s capacity to earn rather than his actual earnings there should be a finding, based on competent evidence, that respondent is failing to exercise his capacity to earn in disregard of his parental obligation to provide support for his children. Conrad v. Conrad, 252 N.C. 412, 113 S.E. 2d 912.\nReversed and remanded.\nJudges Campbell and Morris concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "VAUGHN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General James H. Carson, Jr., by Assistant Attorney General William Woodward Webb for the State.",
      "Davis, Koontz \u25a0& Horton by Clarence E. Horton, Jr., for respondent appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CAROL BARRINGER, Petitioner v. REECE DAUGHTON BARRINGER, JR., Respondent\nNo. 7419DC817\n(Filed 4 December 1974)\nParent and Child \u00a7 10\u2014 Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act \u2014 ability to provide support \u2014 failure to exercise earning capacity\nProceeding under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act is remanded for a hearing on respondent\u2019s ability to provide support; if the award is based on respondent\u2019s capacity to earn rather than his actual earnings, there should be a finding based on competent evidence that respondent is failing to exercise his capacity to earn in disregard of his parental obligation to provide support for his children.\nAppeal by respondent from an order entered by Warren, District Court Judge, 11 June 1974 Session of District Court held in Cabarrus County.\nAttorney General James H. Carson, Jr., by Assistant Attorney General William Woodward Webb for the State.\nDavis, Koontz \u25a0& Horton by Clarence E. Horton, Jr., for respondent appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0142-01",
  "first_page_order": 170,
  "last_page_order": 171
}