{
  "id": 8554381,
  "name": "DEVONNA McCRAE HILL v. ALAN HILL",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hill v. Hill",
  "decision_date": "1975-11-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 7519DC527",
  "first_page": "423",
  "last_page": "425",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "27 N.C. App. 423"
    }
  ],
  "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": "207 S.E. 2d 355",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "22 N.C. App. 651",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11311134
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/22/0651-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "201 S.E. 2d 46",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "20 N.C. App. 149",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8550190
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/20/0149-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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": "170 S.E. 2d 87",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "6 N.C. App. 410",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8548363
      ],
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/6/0410-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 264,
    "char_count": 3607,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.579,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2059900017336918
    },
    "sha256": "a2ea8cbec143b3f0eb9237111b3d845bd54217f4c1e79277e0847afe54f90df8",
    "simhash": "1:e3e177e72c8d6ad0",
    "word_count": 588
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:44:36.927205+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Vaughn and Arnold concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "DEVONNA McCRAE HILL v. ALAN HILL"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BRITT, Judge.\nDefendant contends that the court did not make sufficient-findings of fact to support its order. We agree with this contention.\nG.S. 50-16.3 provides in pertinent part that a dependent spouse who is a party to an action for alimony without divorce shall be entitled to an order for alimony pendente lite when \u201c (1)' [i]t shall appear from all the evidence presented pursuant to G.S. 50-16.8 (f), that such spouse is entitled to the relief demanded by such spouse in the action in which the application for alimony pendente lite is made, and (2) [i]t shall appear that the dependent spouse has not sufficient means whereon to subsist during the prosecution or defense of the suit and to defray the necessary expenses thereof.\u201d\nG.S. 50-16.4 authorizes the court to enter an order for reasonable counsel fees for the benefit of a dependent spouse who is entitled to alimony pendente lite pursuant to G.S. 50-16.3. G.S. 50-16.8 (f) provides that when a party applies for alimony pendente lite and a hearing is held, the judge shall find the facts from the evidence presented.\n| . Specifically, defendant argues that before the court can \u00e1w\u00e1rd temporary alimony and counsel fees, in addition to other findings, it must make findings of fact as to whether plaintiff qualifies for relief under G.S. 50-16.3 and cites Blake v. Blake, 6 N.C. App. 410, 170 S.E. 2d 87 (1969) ; Peoples v. Peoples, 10 N.C. App. 402, 179 S.E. 2d 138 (1971) ; Manning v. Manning, 20 N.C. App. 149, 201 S.E. 2d 46 (1973) ; Newsome v. Newsome, 22 N.C. App. 651, 207 S.E. 2d 355 (1974). The argument has merit.\nIn her complaint, plaintiff alleged that for some time after their marriage on 30 June 1973 the parties lived happily together, but thereafter defendant began using alcoholic beverages to excess, cursing and otherwise abusing plaintiff, and one occasion assaulted her. She further alleged that she was without means on which to subsist during the pendency of this action and was without funds to properly prosecute her action. Although plaintiff presented evidence supporting, and defendant presented evidence contradicting, these allegations the court made no findings with respect to them.\nFor fail\u00fcre of the court to make findings of fact on vital questions, the order appealed from must be vacated and the cause remanded for further proceedings.\nOrder vacated and cause remanded.\nJudges Vaughn and Arnold concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BRITT, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ottway Burton and Millicent Gibson for plaintiff appellee.",
      "DeLapp, Hedrick and Harp, by Charles H. Harp II for defendant appellant. . ."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "DEVONNA McCRAE HILL v. ALAN HILL\nNo. 7519DC527\n(Filed 5 November 1975)\nAttorney and Client \u00a7 7; Divorce and Alimony \u00a7 18\u2014 award of alimony pendente lite and counsel fees \u2014 insufficient findings\nThe trial court erred in ordering defendant to pay temporary alimony and counsel fees without making findings of fact as to whether plaintiff qualified for relief under G.S. 50-16.3.\nAppeal by defendant from Montgomery, Judge. Judgment entered 30 January 1975 in District Court, Randolph County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 16 October 1975.\nThis is an action for temporary and permanent alimony without divorce, there being no children involved. Pursuant to notice, the court held a hearing with respect to temporary alimony and counsel fees. Following the hearing, the court entered an order finding certain facts and ordering, among other things, that pending further orders of the court and a final determination of the cause on the merits, that defendant pay $25 per week \u201cfor temporary subsistence\u201d and pay $100 fee for plaintiff\u2019s counsel. Defendant appealed.\nOttway Burton and Millicent Gibson for plaintiff appellee.\nDeLapp, Hedrick and Harp, by Charles H. Harp II for defendant appellant. . ."
  },
  "file_name": "0423-01",
  "first_page_order": 451,
  "last_page_order": 453
}