{
  "id": 8556166,
  "name": "RUTH FOSTER v. THOMAS D. FOSTER",
  "name_abbreviation": "Foster v. Foster",
  "decision_date": "1975-05-07",
  "docket_number": "No. 751DC176",
  "first_page": "676",
  "last_page": "676",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "25 N.C. App. 676"
    }
  ],
  "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": "183 S.E. 2d 420",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "12 N.C. App. 286",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8549183
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/12/0286-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 110,
    "char_count": 1376,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.593,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.527646540942415e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3479424862221697
    },
    "sha256": "bec86726844d4a3da46327e6af1ba2d84bcbbaa34126c4266bb50e50b0085a00",
    "simhash": "1:a47155920c733578",
    "word_count": 240
  },
  "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 Parker concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "RUTH FOSTER v. THOMAS D. FOSTER"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "VAUGHN, Judge.\nPlaintiff seeks alimony, alimony pendente lite and counsel fees. Defendant pleaded his spouse\u2019s adultery in bar of her right to recover. The order from which defendant appeals contains no finding on the issue.\nWhen adultery is pleaded in bar of a demand for alimony or alimony pendente lite, an award will not be sustained in the absence of a finding of fact on the issue of adultery in favor of the party seeking the award. Austin v. Austin, 12 N.C. App. 286, 183 S.E. 2d 420. The court also failed to find facts to support the award of counsel fees. The judgment is vacated and remanded.\nVacated and remanded.\nJudges Britt and Parker concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "VAUGHN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "' No counsel for plaintiff.",
      "White, Hall, Mullen & Brumsey, by Gerald F. White and H. T. Mullen, Jr., for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "RUTH FOSTER v. THOMAS D. FOSTER\nNo. 751DC176\n(Filed 7 May 1975)\nDivorce and Alimony \u00a7 16\u2014 alimony \u2014 defense of adultery \u2014 absence of finding\nWhen adultery is pleaded in bar of a demand for alimony or alimony pendente lite, an award will not be sustained in the absence of a finding of fact on the issue of adultery in favor of the party seeking the award.\nAppeal by defendant from Chaffin, Judge. Judgment entered 22 January 1974 in District Court, Pasquotank County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 17 April 1975.\n\u25a0The appeal is from an order awarding alimony pendente lite and counsel fees.\n' No counsel for plaintiff.\nWhite, Hall, Mullen & Brumsey, by Gerald F. White and H. T. Mullen, Jr., for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0676-01",
  "first_page_order": 704,
  "last_page_order": 704
}