{
  "id": 8555120,
  "name": "SHERRON M. TRAVIS v. ROBERT Y. TRAVIS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Travis v. Travis",
  "decision_date": "1975-11-19",
  "docket_number": "No. 7525DC576",
  "first_page": "575",
  "last_page": "576",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "27 N.C. App. 575"
    }
  ],
  "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"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 179,
    "char_count": 2275,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.591,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20600486746524604
    },
    "sha256": "55b0b4070f525e46ca4dfd1737fad57a1266a7e01b1b772fb933a2a4b1de93be",
    "simhash": "1:a2e232e994c5335e",
    "word_count": 360
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:44:36.927205+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Britt and Vaughn concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "SHERRON M. TRAVIS v. ROBERT Y. TRAVIS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nDefendant contends that the court\u2019s conclusions are not supported by findings of fact. The court concluded that (1) plaintiff is a dependent spouse; (2) plaintiff is entitled to relief sought; (3) plaintiff does not have sufficient means to subsist and prosecute her action; (4) plaintiff is a fit and proper person to have temporary custody; and (5) defendant shall pay alimony pendente lite and counsel fees for plaintiff\u2019s attorney.\nWe agree with defendant\u2019s contentions. The court\u2019s conclusions are not supported by its findings of fact.\nWhile it is not required that the trial judge make findings of fact as to each allegation and evidentiary fact presented, it is necessary for the trial judge to make findings of fact from which it can be determined upon appellate review that an award of alimony pendente lite is justified and appropriate. Newsome v. Newsome, 22 N.C. App. 651, 207 S.E. 2d 355 (1974).\nThe findings of fact are insufficient to support the order. The order is vacated and this cause is remanded for rehearing.\nVacated and remanded.\nJudges Britt and Vaughn concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ARNOLD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "No brief filed by plaintiff appellee.",
      "Come, Warlick and Pitts, by Stanley J. Come and Larry W. Pitts, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "SHERRON M. TRAVIS v. ROBERT Y. TRAVIS\nNo. 7525DC576\n(Filed 19 November 1975)\nDivorce and Alimony \u00a7 18\u2014 alimony pendente lite \u2014 insufficiency of findings\nTrial court\u2019s findings were insufficient to support an award of alimony pendente lite and counsel fees.\nAppeal by defendant from Tate, Judge. Judgment entered 22 April 1975 in District Court, Catawba County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 21 October 1975.\nPlaintiff instituted this action for alimony without divorce, custody of their minor son, child support and relief pendente lite. She alleged that her husband abandoned her and rendered her condition intolerable and burdensome. Defendant denied the material allegations of plaintiff\u2019s complaint and alleged that the parties had mutually agreed to separate.\nA hearing was held with Judge Tate making findings of fact and written conclusions of law upon the evidence presented. An order was subsequently entered awarding plaintiff alimony pendente lite, temporary custody, child support, and counsel fees. Defendant appealed to this Court.\nNo brief filed by plaintiff appellee.\nCome, Warlick and Pitts, by Stanley J. Come and Larry W. Pitts, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0575-01",
  "first_page_order": 603,
  "last_page_order": 604
}