{
  "id": 8555591,
  "name": "BETTY HOWELL ARNOLD v. BOBBY J. ARNOLD",
  "name_abbreviation": "Arnold v. Arnold",
  "decision_date": "1976-09-15",
  "docket_number": "No. 7628DC293",
  "first_page": "683",
  "last_page": "685",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "30 N.C. App. 683"
    }
  ],
  "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": "208 S.E. 2d 239",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1974,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "240"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "23 N.C. App. 102",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8548012
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1974,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "103"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/23/0102-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "215 S.E. 2d 30",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "287 N.C. 448",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8563081
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/287/0448-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 302,
    "char_count": 5340,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.692,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.506521316493367e-08,
      "percentile": 0.48668686861666455
    },
    "sha256": "3ee64cfd8c8a171705a8a649a9f4f7ada2b166345958f71d1727cbfefe8a3b32",
    "simhash": "1:227936f72297add4",
    "word_count": 891
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:42:34.327987+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Hedrick and Martin concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "BETTY HOWELL ARNOLD v. BOBBY J. ARNOLD"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BRITT, Judge.\nDefendant states his first question thusly: \u201cDid the court err in ordering the payment of child support without determining the needs of the children as distinguished from the needs of the plaintiff and the minor children jointly?\u201d We answer in the negative.\nDefendant relies upon G.S. 50-13.4 (e) which in its last sentence provides that \u201c[i]n every case in which payment for the support of a minor child is ordered and alimony or alimony pendente lite is also ordered, the order shall separately state and identify each allowance.\u201d This provision of the statute is inapplicable to the present case. The court found that plaintiff was not a dependent spouse for purposes of alimony pendente lite. No alimony was awarded and all provisions for support are solely for the benefit of the minor children.\nDefendant next contends that the award of counsel fees for plaintiff\u2019s attorney was improper under G.S. 50-13.6 which requires that \u201c [b] efore ordering payment of a fee in a support action, the court must find as a fact that the party ordered to furnish support has refused to provide support which is adequate under the circumstances. ...\u201d We find no merit in this contention. The Supreme Court has recently held that the requirement of a finding that the party ordered to pay support has refused to provide support applies only in support actions and not in custody or custody and support actions. Stanback v. Sanback, 287 N.C. 448, 215 S.E. 2d 30 (1975). The motion in the present case was for both custody and support; therefore, no finding of refusal to support was required.\nFinally, defendant contends that the trial judge erred in awarding possession and control of the home owned by the parties as tenants by entirety, to the plaintiff and minor children for the benefit of the minor children. Defendant argues that the award of the home as a part of child support constituted a writ of possession which is allowable under G.S. 50-17 only when the wife is entitled to alimony or alimony pendente lite. This contention is without merit. The award of the homeplace did not constitute a writ of possession and this court has specifically held that the trial judge may award exclusive possession of the homeplace, even though owned by the entirety, as a part of support under G.S. 50-13.4. Boulware v. Boulware, 23 N.C. App. 102, 208 S.E. 2d 239 (1974). \u201cCertainly, shelter is a necessary component of a child\u2019s needs and in many instances it is more feasible for a parent to provide actual shelter as a part of his child support obligations than it is for the parent to provide monetary payments to obtain shelter.\u201d 23 N.C. App. at 103, 208 S.E. 2d at 240.\nThe judgment appealed from is\nAffirmed.\nJudges Hedrick and Martin concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BRITT, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gray, Kimel <& Connelly, by David G. Gray, for plaintiff appellee.",
      "Riddle and Shackelford, P.A., by Robert E. Riddle, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "BETTY HOWELL ARNOLD v. BOBBY J. ARNOLD\nNo. 7628DC293\n(Filed 15 September 1976)\n1. Divorce and Alimony \u00a7 18\u2014 alimony pendente lite and child support \u2014 separate statement \u2014 inapplicability\nThe requirement of G.S. 50-13.4 (e) that allowances for child support and alimony pendente lite be stated separately was inapplicable where the court found plaintiff was not a dependent spouse for pur-purposes of alimony pendente lite and all provisions for support were solely for the benefit of the minor children.\n2. Divorce and Alimony \u00a7 22; Attorney and Client \u00a7 7\u2014 child custody and support \u2014 award of attorney\u2019s fees\nThe requirement of G.S. 50-13.6 that the court must find that the party ordered to furnish support has refused to provide adequate support in order for attorney\u2019s fees to be awarded applies only in support actions and not in custody or custody and support actions.\n3. Divorce and Alimony \u00a7 23\u2014 child support \u2014 possession of home\nThe award of possession of the home owned by the parties as tenants by the entirety to the wife and minor children for the benefit of the minor children did not constitute a writ of possession and was proper.\nAppeal by defendant from Allen, Judge. Judgment entered 23 March 1976 in District Court, Buncombe County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 26 August 1976.\nIn this action, instituted 25 April 1974, plaintiff seeks a divorce from bed and board, alimony, and custody of and support for the minor children of the parties. In his answer, defendant asks that plaintiff\u2019s action be dismissed and that he be granted a divorce from bed and board.\nFollowing a hearing on a motion by plaintiff for temporary alimony and other relief, the court made findings of fact and conclusions of law and entered an order providing: (1) that plaintiff have custody of the children with specified visitation privileges in the defendant; (2) that the plaintiff and minor children have possession and control of the house and furnishings \u201cfor the benefit of the children\u201d; (3) that plaintiff have possession and use of a 1969 Buick station wagon; (4) that defendant pay the reasonable and necessary expenses of maintaining the children, including the house payment, medical and dental expenses, medical and dental insurance coverage, maintenance of the home including the fuel bill, insurance on the automobile, and $300 per month; and (5) that defendant pay plaintiff\u2019s attorney $500. From this order, defendant appealed.\nGray, Kimel <& Connelly, by David G. Gray, for plaintiff appellee.\nRiddle and Shackelford, P.A., by Robert E. Riddle, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0683-01",
  "first_page_order": 711,
  "last_page_order": 713
}
