{
  "id": 8550965,
  "name": "DREMA DIANA HOWARD LOFLIN v. RICKY WALTER LOFLIN",
  "name_abbreviation": "Loflin v. Loflin",
  "decision_date": "1975-03-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 7419DC1005",
  "first_page": "103",
  "last_page": "104",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "25 N.C. App. 103"
    }
  ],
  "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": "196 S.E. 2d 562",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "18 N.C. App. 311",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8549149
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/18/0311-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 174,
    "char_count": 2880,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.574,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.360589685387119e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3899812305659519
    },
    "sha256": "e171fec7e685927852d4d05548cb6e13e8ae19eeba2bcdafa95d81f423f9989d",
    "simhash": "1:764b1f07b64b6a3e",
    "word_count": 462
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:30:12.075015+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Hedrick and Clark concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "DREMA DIANA HOWARD LOFLIN v. RICKY WALTER LOFLIN"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BROCK, Chief Judge.\nIn order for a spouse to be entitled to alimony, alimony pendente lite, or counsel fees, that spouse must be a dependent spouse. Little v. Little, 18 N.C. App. 311, 196 S.E. 2d 562 (1973). The burden of proving dependency is upon the spouse asserting the claim for alimony or alimony pendente lite. Under G.S. 50-16.1(3) the dependency of the spouse asserting the claim may be established by proof that such spouse is either (a) actually substantially dependent upon the other spouse for his or her maintenance and support, or (b) substantially in need of maintenance and support from the other spouse.\nThe trial judge found that \u201cthere was no evidence introduced that plaintiff was substantially dependent upon the defendant for her maintenance and support.\u201d If this finding may be interpreted as a finding that plaintiff is not substantially dependent upon defendant for her maintenance and support, it nevertheless ignores the alternative given to plaintiff to prove that she is substantially in need of maintenance and support from the defendant. Proof of either would qualify her as a dependent spouse.\nWe express no opinion upon the evidence presented. We merely hold that the findings by the trial judge do not resolve the issue of whether plaintiff is a dependent spouse within the alternative definitions provided by G.S. 50-16.1(3).\nThe order appealed from must be vacated and the cause remanded to the District Court for a new hearing upon plaintiff\u2019s application for alimony pendente lite and counsel fees.\nVacated and remanded.\nJudges Hedrick and Clark concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BROCK, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ottway Burton, for the plaintiff.",
      "Bell, Ogburn & Redding, by Deane F. Bell, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "DREMA DIANA HOWARD LOFLIN v. RICKY WALTER LOFLIN\nNo. 7419DC1005\n(Filed 5 March 1975)\nDivorce and Alimony \u00a7 18 \u2014 alimony pendente lite \u2014 dependent spouse \u2014 methods of proof\nThe trial court erred in denying plaintiff alimony and counsel fees pendente lite based on a finding that plaintiff failed to show that she is substantially dependent on defendant for maintenance and support since the court ignored the alternative method given to plaintiff to prove that she is a dependent spouse by showing that she is substantially in need of maintenance and support from defendant. G.S. 50-16.1(3).\nAppeal by plaintiff from Hammond, Judge. Judgment entered 26 July 1974 in District Court, Randolph County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 13 February 1975.\nThis is an action for alimony without divorce and for counsel fees. The matter was heard upon plaintiff\u2019s application for alimony and counsel fees pendente lite. Plaintiff requested that her verified complaint be considered as an affidavit. She testified personally and placed in evidence a record of defendant\u2019s earnings in 1973 and 1974. Defendant offered no evidence. The trial judge denied plaintiff\u2019s application for alimony pendente lite.\nOttway Burton, for the plaintiff.\nBell, Ogburn & Redding, by Deane F. Bell, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0103-01",
  "first_page_order": 131,
  "last_page_order": 132
}