{
  "id": 8551051,
  "name": "ANITA ORREN v. ROBERT A. ORREN",
  "name_abbreviation": "Orren v. Orren",
  "decision_date": "1975-03-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 7427DC1066",
  "first_page": "106",
  "last_page": "107",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "25 N.C. App. 106"
    }
  ],
  "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": "173 S.E. 2d 33",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "7 N.C. App. 562",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551847
      ],
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/7/0562-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "179 S.E. 2d 138",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "10 N.C. App. 402",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8554114
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/10/0402-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "193 S.E. 2d 468",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "17 N.C. App. 175",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8554638
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/17/0175-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 170,
    "char_count": 2513,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.559,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20590814367941915
    },
    "sha256": "2a674dec3671b0311c2f64b49cdaad12074b91aecb2134131853a542af76573e",
    "simhash": "1:f3cbcde212df3a35",
    "word_count": 416
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:30:12.075015+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Britt and Morris concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "ANITA ORREN v. ROBERT A. ORREN"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nPlaintiff contends that her testimony, the only evidence presented at the hearing, does not support the trial court\u2019s findings of fact and that these findings do not support the court\u2019s conclusion that she is not a dependent spouse.\nIn an action for alimony pendente lite the trial court is not required to find evidentiary or subsidiary facts. The court need only to find the ultimate facts in issue. Sprinkle v. Sprinkle, 17 N.C. App. 175, 193 S.E. 2d 468 (1972) ; Peoples v. Peoples, 10 N.C. App. 402, 179 S.E. 2d 138 (1971) ; Hatcher v. Hatcher, 7 N.C. App. 562, 173 S.E. 2d 33 (1970). A dependent spouse is defined in G.S. 50-16.1(3) as \u201ca spouse, whether husband or wife, who is actually substantially dependent upon the other spouse for his or her maintenance and support or is substantially in need of maintenance and support from the other spouse.\u201d\nThe court found in the case at bar that \u201cthe plaintiff., is employed at this time at Gaston Memorial Hospital and earns sufficient income to support and maintain herself in the manner that she was accustomed to living prior to the separation and earns approximately the same amount of money that the defendant earns. . . . [She] is not dependent upon the defendant for her support and maintenance . \u201d Plaintiff\u2019s own testimony amply supports these findings of ultimate fact. They in turn support the conclusion that plaintiff is not a dependent spouse. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nJudges Britt and Morris concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ARNOLD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Basil L. Whitener and Anne M. Lamm for plaintiff appellant.",
      "No brief filed by defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ANITA ORREN v. ROBERT A. ORREN\nNo. 7427DC1066\n(Filed 5 March 1975)\nDivorce and Alimony \u00a7 18 \u2014 alimony pendente lite \u2014 no dependent spouse\nTrial court\u2019s conclusion that plaintiff was not a dependent spouse and was thus not entitled to alimony pendente lite was supported by findings that plaintiff earns sufficient income to support and maintain herself in the manner to which she was accustomed prior to the separation, that she earns the same amount of money as defendant, and that she is not dependent upon defendant for her support and maintenance.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Kirby, Judge. Judgment entered 7 November 1974 in District Court, Gaston County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 21 February 1975.\nPlaintiff wife brought this action against defendant husband for alimony without divorce. From the order of the trial court denying her request for alimony pendente lite, plaintiff appealed to this Court.\nBasil L. Whitener and Anne M. Lamm for plaintiff appellant.\nNo brief filed by defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0106-01",
  "first_page_order": 134,
  "last_page_order": 135
}