{
  "id": 8553459,
  "name": "EDITH MAE ROBERTS v. GRADY FETSER ROBERTS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Roberts v. Roberts",
  "decision_date": "1976-07-21",
  "docket_number": "No. 7621DC219",
  "first_page": "242",
  "last_page": "244",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "30 N.C. App. 242"
    }
  ],
  "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": "219 S.E. 2d 291",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "27 N.C. App. 343",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8553642,
        8553606
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "348"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/27/0343-02",
        "/nc-app/27/0343-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "114 S.E. 2d 79",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1960,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "252 N.C. 408",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8622499
      ],
      "year": 1960,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "412"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/252/0408-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 300,
    "char_count": 4653,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.653,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1257608655427333e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5745603315096749
    },
    "sha256": "899cb19d8700165cbcc15b34d29a2e0253773726b307d5a25a0d84ccd5514cec",
    "simhash": "1:6ac576245ca6af1f",
    "word_count": 778
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:42:34.327987+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge Brock and Judge Parker concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "EDITH MAE ROBERTS v. GRADY FETSER ROBERTS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nThe court ordered a lump sum payment of alimony pen-dente lite in the amount of $17,500, exactly one-half the amount in the parties\u2019 joint savings account. Defendant contends the trial court erred in ordering the lump sum payment since adjudication of the parties\u2019 respective rights in the joint account was not a proper matter to be settled at the hearing on alimony pendente lite. We agree.\nThe purpose of alimony pendente lite is to provide the dependent spouse with reasonable living expenses during the pendency of litigation. As stated by Higgins, J., in Sguros v. Sguros, 252 N.C. 408, 412, 114 S.E. 2d 79 (1960) : \u201cA pendente lite order is intended to go no further than provide subsistence and counsel fees pending the litigation. It cannot set up a savings account in favor of the plaintiff. Such is not the purpose and cannot be made the effect of an order.\u201d\n\u201cUnlike the question of subsistence pendente lite or temporary child custody, the matter of disputed ownership of considerable assets will turn on determination made in the context of a final hearing on the merits of all the claims and assertions.\u201d (Emphasis added.) Guy v. Guy, 27 N.C. App. 343, 348, 219 S.E. 2d 291 (1975). In this case the court acted prematurely. A determination of the rights to the joint savings account was a matter for final hearing on all the merits, and not for hearing on alimony pendente lite.\nDefendant\u2019s second argument that the court erred in making findings of fact not supported by the evidence is without merit.\nThat portion of the court\u2019s order directing payment of alimony pendente lite to plaintiff in a lump sum of $17,500 is vacated. The remaining portions of the order are affirmed.\nVacated in part.\nAffirmed in part.\nChief Judge Brock and Judge Parker concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ARNOLD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Larry F. Habegger for plaintiff appellee.",
      "White and Crumpler, by Melvin F. Wright, Jr., for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "EDITH MAE ROBERTS v. GRADY FETSER ROBERTS\nNo. 7621DC219\n(Filed 21 July 1976)\nDivorce and Alimony \u00a7 18\u2014 alimony pendente lite \u2014 half of joint savings account\nThe trial court erred in ordering a lump sum payment of $17,600 as alimony pendente lite, which is one-half the amount in the parties\u2019 joint saving account, since a determination of the rights to the joint savings account was a matter for final hearing on the merits and not for hearing on alimony pendente lite.\nAppeal by defendant from Ymger, Judge. Order entered 19 December 1975 in District Court, Forsyth County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 10 June 1976.\nPlaintiff wife brought this action wherein she seeks divorce from bed and board, alimony pendente lite, attorney fees, an accounting, and a restraining order. She alleged cruelty and indignities, and that defendant had withdrawn the money from the parties\u2019 joint savings account. Defendant counterclaimed for divorce from bed and board, and he alleged abandonment and indignities on behalf of plaintiff.\nAt the alimony pendente lite hearing plaintiff testified that defendant had offered indignities to her for years prior to 23 August 1975. On 21 August 1975, according to plaintiff, defendant grabbed her by the hair and shook her. On 23 August 1975 plaintiff left the family home and attempted suicide for which she was hospitalized for six weeks, and incurred a hospital bill for $5,000. Plaintiff stated that defendant harassed her while she was hospitalized, and demanded that she return home with him.\nPlaintiff also testified that she had worked from the time of the parties\u2019 marriage in 1942 until 1974, and that she had contributed at least 80% of the $35,000 which had been in a joint banking account until defendant had recently withdrawn it and placed it into an account in his name. She testified that defendant received $510 each month as rent from a trailer park owned by the parties, $110 a month in rent from other properties which they own, plus $207 a month from the Veterans\u2019 Administration.\nDefendant testified that he grabbed plaintiff and shook her because he was upset. He stated that eighty percent of the money in the savings account came from rentals owned by both parties, and that he was only receiving $300 a month from the trailer park because there were only ten trailers whereas there had been seventeen.\nThe court found that plaintiff was a dependent spouse, defendant was a supporting spouse, and that defendant had offered indignities to plaintiff and had constructively abandoned her. It was ordered, among other things, that plaintiff receive alimony pendente lite in the amount of $300 per month, and that she receive a lump sum payment of $17,500 as alimony pendente lite.\nDefendant appealed.\nLarry F. Habegger for plaintiff appellee.\nWhite and Crumpler, by Melvin F. Wright, Jr., for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0242-01",
  "first_page_order": 270,
  "last_page_order": 272
}
