{ "id": 8523018, "name": "GAIL H. WILLIFORD AND TINA GAIL WILLIFORD v. DAVID E. WILLIFORD", "name_abbreviation": "Williford v. Williford", "decision_date": "1982-04-06", "docket_number": "No. 8116DC674", "first_page": "610", "last_page": "614", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "56 N.C. App. 610" } ], "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": "263 S.E. 2d 783", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "45 N.C. App. 376", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8548962 ], "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/45/0376-01" ] }, { "cite": "286 S.E. 2d 657", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "252 S.E. 2d 735", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "297 N.C. 14", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8566426 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/297/0014-01" ] }, { "cite": "136 S.E. 2d 81", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1964, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "82" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "261 N.C. 764", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8575575 ], "year": 1964, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "765" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/261/0764-01" ] }, { "cite": "154 S.E. 2d 71", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "270 N.C. 253", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8566989 ], "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/270/0253-01" ] }, { "cite": "245 S.E. 2d 381", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "36 N.C. App. 705", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8555447 ], "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/36/0705-01" ] }, { "cite": "136 S.E. 2d 240", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1964, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "262 N.C. 67", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565461 ], "year": 1964, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/262/0067-01" ] }, { "cite": "251 S.E. 2d 433", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "296 N.C. 580", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8568392 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/296/0580-01" ] }, { "cite": "245 S.E. 2d 820", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "37 N.C. App. 255", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8552119 ], "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/37/0255-01" ] }, { "cite": "228 S.E. 2d 452", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "290 N.C. 661", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8563364, 8563333, 8563302, 8563273, 8563390 ], "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/290/0661-04", "/nc/290/0661-03", "/nc/290/0661-02", "/nc/290/0661-01", "/nc/290/0661-05" ] }, { "cite": "225 S.E. 2d 143", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "29 N.C. App. 596", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8556762 ], "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/29/0596-01" ] }, { "cite": "158 S.E. 2d 77", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "272 N.C. 235", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8572341 ], "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/272/0235-01" ] }, { "cite": "148 S.E. 2d 218", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1966, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "222" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "267 N.C. 378", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559378 ], "year": 1966, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "383" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/267/0378-01" ] }, { "cite": "204 S.E. 2d 554", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1974, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "556" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "21 N.C. App. 390", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8556174 ], "year": 1974, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "393" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/21/0390-01" ] }, { "cite": "264 S.E. 2d 786", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "46 N.C. App. 332", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8550736 ], "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/46/0332-01" ] }, { "cite": "195 S.E. 351", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1938, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "213 N.C. 189", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627127 ], "year": 1938, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/213/0189-01" ] }, { "cite": "150 S.E. 2d 391", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "268 N.C. 254", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8561177 ], "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/268/0254-01" ] }, { "cite": "49 S.E. 2d 403", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1948, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "404" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "229 N.C. 248", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 12165445 ], "year": 1948, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "250" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/229/0248-01" ] }, { "cite": "278 S.E. 2d 260", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "52 N.C. App. 104", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 12170028 ], "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/52/0104-01" ] }, { "cite": "278 S.E. 2d 564", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "52 N.C. App. 344", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 12170259 ], "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/52/0344-01" ] }, { "cite": "154 S.E. 2d 313", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "270 N.C. 206", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8566606 ], "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/270/0206-01" ] }, { "cite": "243 S.E. 2d 129", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "294 N.C. 554", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8574089 ], "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/294/0554-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 494, "char_count": 7922, "ocr_confidence": 0.772, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.1850200046748692e-07, "percentile": 0.5900266772309891 }, "sha256": "ef6fa89d21b63edad96fee0bdc122d07744697bef5579b34c404ae3436eefe55", "simhash": "1:559dc06c601f3e12", "word_count": 1291 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:44:21.707745+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges MARTIN (Robert M.) and MARTIN (Harry C.) concur." ], "parties": [ "GAIL H. WILLIFORD AND TINA GAIL WILLIFORD v. DAVID E. WILLIFORD" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "WHICHARD, Judge.\nThe complaint alleged and the answer admitted that defendant and plaintiff Gail H. Williford had entered a Separation Agreement providing for payment by defendant of alimony and child support. On the basis of defendant\u2019s admission, summary judgment was allowed and defendant was ordered specifically to perform the provisions of the agreement.\nThereafter the court adjudged defendant in contempt for non-compliance. It prescribed a method whereby he could purge the contempt. Defendant again failed to comply, however, and a further contempt order was entered.\nDefendant appeals from this order, assigning as error (1) entry of the order, and (2) refusal to admit his evidence of changed circumstances and to modify the alimony provisions. We affirm.\nDefendant contends he lacked the means to make the payments, and that his failure to comply thus was not wilful. He attributes his inability to make the payments to (1) reduction in income, and (2) acquisition of a second family.\nThe court found the following facts:\nDefendant voluntarily left the employment he had when the agreement was entered. He obtained new employment at a reduction in gross annual salary of approximately $7,000.00. He then voluntarily left that employer to work for an unnamed concern for undisclosed compensation. His income situation was thus \u201cof his own making.\u201d\nDefendant remarried and had a child by the second marriage. He applied his income to matters other than his obligations under the agreement and court orders. Since entry of the orders he had continued to pay his country club dues, truck payments, and bank loan payments. Despite no ownership interest therein, he had commenced making the payments on a home owned by his second wife.\nThese findings are supported by competent evidence. They are thus conclusive on appeal and are reviewable only as to their sufficiency to warrant the order. Clark v. Clark, 294 N.C. 554, 243 S.E. 2d 129 (1978); Rose\u2019s Stores v. Tarrytown Center, 270 N.C. 206, 154 S.E. 2d 313 (1967); State Board of Registration v. Testing Laboratories, Inc., 52 N.C. App. 344, 278 S.E. 2d 564 (1981); Jones v. Jones, 52 N.C. App. 104, 278 S.E. 2d 260 (1981).\n\u201c[0]ne does not act willfully in failing to comply with a judgment if it has not been within his power to do so since the judgment was rendered.\u201d Lamm v. Lamm, 229 N.C. 248, 250, 49 S.E. 2d 403, 404 (1948). See also Mauney v. Mauney, 268 N.C. 254, 150 S.E. 2d 391 (1966); Vaughan v. Vaughan, 213 N.C. 189, 195 S.E. 351 (1938); Jones v. Jones, supra; Teachey v. Teachey, 46 N.C. App. 332, 264 S.E. 2d 786 (1980). However, \u201c[a] defendant may not deliberately divest himself of his property and in effect pauperize himself for appearance at a hearing for contempt and thereby escape punishment because he is at that time unable to comply with the court order.\u201d Bennett v. Bennett, 21 N.C. App. 390, 393, 204 S.E. 2d 554, 556 (1974). Further, \u201c[p]ayment of alimony may not be avoided merely because . . . the husband has remarried and voluntarily assumed additional obligations.\u201d Sayland v. Sayland, 267 N.C. 378, 383, 148 S.E. 2d 218, 222 (1966). This principle also prevails with regard to child support. Crosby v. Crosby, 272 N.C. 235, 158 S.E. 2d 77 (1967); Hemby v. Hemby, 29 N.C. App. 596, 225 S.E. 2d 143, disc. rev. denied, 290 N.C. 661, 228 S.E. 2d 452 (1976). See also Beasley v. Beasley, 37 N.C. App. 255, 245 S.E. 2d 820 (1978), aff'd, 296 N.C. 580, 251 S.E. 2d 433 (1979); 3 Lee, North Carolina Family Law, \u00a7 229, p. 132 (4th ed. 1981).\nPursuant to these principles the above findings, supported by competent evidence, sufficed to warrant the order. The assignment of error to its entry is therefore overruled.\nDefendant further contends the court erred in refusing to admit evidence of his changed circumstances and to modify the alimony provisions. He argues that by securing an order of specific performance, plaintiffs changed the agreement from \u201ca mere contract . . . which could not be modified, to a court order . . . which can be modified . . . based upon changed conditions.\u201d\nDefendant relies on cases involving separation agreements which had been incorporated into court decrees and compliance therewith ordered. See Bunn v. Bunn, 262 N.C. 67, 136 S.E. 2d 240 (1964); Britt v. Britt, 36 N.C. App. 705, 245 S.E. 2d 381 (1978). In such cases the agreement becomes an adjudication by the court and thus subject to modification by court order. Mitchell v. Mitchell, 270 N.C. 253, 154 S.E. 2d 71 (1967); Sayland v. Sayland, supra. Except in such cases, however, \u201c[t]he ordinary rules governing the interpretation of contracts apply to separation agreements and the courts are without power to modify them.\u201d Church v. Hancock, 261 N.C. 764, 765, 136 S.E. 2d 81, 82 (1964).\nThe Separation Agreement here had not been incorporated into a court decree with which the parties had been ordered to comply. Because, the available remedy at law for enforcement of a separation agreement not incorporated into a judicial decree is inadequate, plaintiff was entitled to a decree of specific performance ordering defendant to comply with the agreement. Moore v. Moore, 297 N.C. 14, 252 S.E. 2d 735 (1979). See also Henderson v. Henderson, \u2014 N.C. App. \u2014, 286 S.E. 2d 657 (1982). Defendant cites no authority, however, and our research discloses none, holding that exercise of the equitable remedy of specific performance alters the contractual nature of a separation agreement, and renders it a court order subject to modification. The agreement would thus appear to remain a contract which the courts are without power to modify. Church v. Hancock, supra; see also Henderson v. Henderson, supra; Haynes v. Haynes, 45 N.C. App. 376,' 263 S.E. 2d 783 (1980).\nAssuming the contrary, however, arguendo only, defendant is not availed thereby. The excluded evidence establishes that defendant\u2019s changed circumstances resulted largely from his voluntary changes of employment and his remarriage; and there was no evidence demonstrating good faith efforts by defendant to comply with the provisions of the Separation Agreement. Under these circumstances modification was not merited.\nThe order is\nAffirmed.\nJudges MARTIN (Robert M.) and MARTIN (Harry C.) concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "WHICHARD, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Terry R. Garner and David F. Tamer for plaintiff appellees.", "John C. B. Regan, III, for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "GAIL H. WILLIFORD AND TINA GAIL WILLIFORD v. DAVID E. WILLIFORD\nNo. 8116DC674\n(Filed 6 April 1982)\n1. Divorce and Alimony \u00a7\u00a7 21, 24.4\u2014 failure to make alimony and child support payments \u2014 order finding contempt proper\nThe trial court did not err in entering an order adjudging defendant in wilful contempt for failure to make alimony and child support payments where defendant voluntarily left the employment he had when a separation agreement was entered, defendant remarried and had a child by the second marriage, he applied his income to matters other than his obligations under the agreement and court orders, and where defendant failed to comply with an order to specifically perform the provisions of the separation agreement.\n2. Divorce and Alimony \u00a7 19.5\u2014 specific performance of separation agreement does not subject it to modification\nThe exercise of the equitable remedy of specific performance does not alter the contractual nature of a separation agreement and does not render it a court order subject to modification; therefore, where the court ordered specific performance of the provisions of a separation agreement concerning alimony and support payments, the court did not err in refusing to admit evidence of defendant\u2019s changed circumstances and to modify the alimony provision.\nAppeal by defendant from Ellis, Judge. Order entered 30 January 1981 in District Court, SCOTLAND County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 4 March 1982.\nDefendant appeals from an order adjudging him in wilful contempt for failure to make alimony and child support payments.\nTerry R. Garner and David F. Tamer for plaintiff appellees.\nJohn C. B. Regan, III, for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0610-01", "first_page_order": 642, "last_page_order": 646 }