{
  "id": 12170602,
  "name": "BARBARA WYLIE SAUNDERS v. FRANK LAMAR SAUNDERS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Saunders v. Saunders",
  "decision_date": "1981-06-16",
  "docket_number": "No. 8018DC1183",
  "first_page": "623",
  "last_page": "625",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "52 N.C. App. 623"
    }
  ],
  "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": "127 S.E. 2d 539",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1962,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "541"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "257 N.C. 717",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8570649
      ],
      "year": 1962,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "719"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/257/0717-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 262,
    "char_count": 4181,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.874,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.8591662004228935e-08,
      "percentile": 0.36759324578382757
    },
    "sha256": "621e26ac3aa596fb499380fa058f2c4a29bafd0381eee32d11535127551a34cb",
    "simhash": "1:a414e0f5cf0986a2",
    "word_count": 658
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T23:00:28.379499+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge MORRIS and Judge WHICHARD concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "BARBARA WYLIE SAUNDERS v. FRANK LAMAR SAUNDERS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WEBB, Judge.\nPlaintiff contends the court erred in its interpretation of \u201cgross annual income.\u201d We agree. The agreement is clear and unambiguous, and \u201c[t]he terms of an unambiguous contract are to be taken and understood in their plain, ordinary and popular sense.\u201d Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Light Co., 257 N.C. 717, 719, 127 S.E. 2d 539, 541 (1962). \u201cGross annual income\u201d in its \u201cplain, ordinary and popular sense\u201d means total income without deductions. Under this definition, defendant\u2019s \u201cgross annual income\u201d should be interpreted to include longevity pay, bonuses and money realized from summer employment. It is from this sum, and not his base salary, that defendant should be charged with \u201cpercentage wise\u201d increases in his monthly payments of alimony and support as prescribed by the agreement.\nWe note the parties, in their arguments and briefs, informed the Court that: (1) plaintiff\u2019s attorney prepared the agreement, (2) dividends and interest were not included in the parties\u2019 interpretation of \u201cgross annual income,\u201d and (3) defendant\u2019s salary in 1973, from his work with Greensboro schools, was slightly less than $17,400.00. The record does not contain any of these facts, and we have not considered them as a basis for this opinion.\nWe reverse and remand for an order consistent with this opinion.\nReversed and remanded.\nChief Judge MORRIS and Judge WHICHARD concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WEBB, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mary F. Cannon and Luke Wright for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Graham, Cooke and Miles, by E. Norman Graham, for defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "BARBARA WYLIE SAUNDERS v. FRANK LAMAR SAUNDERS\nNo. 8018DC1183\n(Filed 16 June 1981)\nDivorce and Alimony g 19.5, 24.2\u2014 child support and alimony\u2014 automatic increase \u2014 method of computation\nWhere a separation agreement between the parties provided that defendant should be charged with \u201cpercentage wise\u201d increases in his monthly payments of alimony and child support based upon increases in his gross annual income, defendant\u2019s gross annual income could be interpreted to include longevity pay, bonuses, and money realized from summer employment, rather than being limited to defendant\u2019s base salary from the public school system.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Williams, Judge. Order entered 2 October 1980 in District Court, GUILFORD County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 27 May 1981.\nOn '30 July 1973, plaintiff and defendant entered into a separation agreement which provided in part as follows:\n\u201cTWELFTH: That the party of the first part shall pay to the party of the second part the sum of $500.00 per month for her support and the support of the children born of their marriage, . . . that the monthly payments of $500.00 are based upon the party of the first part having a gross annual income of $17,400.00, and upon any increase in that gross annual income there shall be a corresponding increase percentage wise in the said monthly payments by the party of the first part to the party of the second part.\u201d\nOn 26 February 1980, plaintiff instituted this action complaining that defendant\u2019s gross annual income had increased since 1973, and that, as a result, the monthly payments of $500.00 should be increased under Article Twelve of their separation agreement.\nPrior to the hearing before the district court, the parties stipulated that:\n\u201c3. [I]n the year 1973 . . . defendant\u2019s projected salary for that year on account of his employment with the Greensboro Public Schools was $17,400.00.\n4. [I]n 1977, defendant\u2019s total salary income was $21,734.40, including $999.14 in longevity pay from Greensboro Public Schools ....\n5. [In] 1978, defendant\u2019s total salary income was $29,565.44, including $1,057.54 in longevity pay from Greensboro Public Schools, and $1,200.00 realized from summer employment by the University of North Carolina at Greensboro ....\n6. [In] 1979, defendant\u2019s total salary income was $29,784.58, which included $1,109.16 in longevity pay from Greensboro Public Schools, [and] a $200.00 bonus . . . .\u201d\nThe district court found that gross annual income earned by the defendant did not include additional income for longevity pay, his $200.00 bonus, or pay for work in the summer school at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro.\nPlaintiff appealed.\nMary F. Cannon and Luke Wright for plaintiff appellant.\nGraham, Cooke and Miles, by E. Norman Graham, for defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0623-01",
  "first_page_order": 651,
  "last_page_order": 653
}
