{ "id": 8524698, "name": "GWENDOLYN PARKS SMITH v. LONNIE SMITH", "name_abbreviation": "Smith v. Smith", "decision_date": "1982-04-20", "docket_number": "No. 8126DC814", "first_page": "812", "last_page": "813", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "56 N.C. App. 812" } ], "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": "108 S.E. 2d 529", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1959, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "250 N.C. 237", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8621949 ], "year": 1959, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/250/0237-01" ] }, { "cite": "122 S.E. 2d 507", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1961, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "255 N.C. 703", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8572483 ], "year": 1961, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/255/0703-01" ] }, { "cite": "39 S.E. 2d 391", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1946, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "393-94" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "226 N.C. 506", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8621620 ], "year": 1946, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/226/0506-01" ] }, { "cite": "183 S.E. 2d 420", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "426" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "12 N.C. App. 286", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8549183 ], "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "293" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/12/0286-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 197, "char_count": 3072, "ocr_confidence": 0.774, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.061447019797991e-08, "percentile": 0.31890874718950796 }, "sha256": "12cdaca8efe7b7ec8cbf0bbbc59bf0a67d608fb5ddf816ce00c5a91ac47daa3e", "simhash": "1:28e8d31222e98e10", "word_count": 517 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:44:21.707745+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Chief Judge MORRIS and Judge VAUGHN concur." ], "parties": [ "GWENDOLYN PARKS SMITH v. LONNIE SMITH" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "HEDRICK, Judge.\nPlaintiff, a resident of the state of Virginia, filed this action for absolute divorce in the district court of Mecklenburg County against the defendant, a resident of Rowan County, North Carolina. Personal service was had on and accepted by the defendant as provided by G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 4(j). The defendant made no appearance. The trial judge, ex mero motu, dismissed the \u201caction\u201d on the grounds that \u201cthe District Court of Mecklenburg County\u201d lacked jurisdiction because the action was filed in Mecklenburg County by a nonresident plaintiff against a defendant who was a resident of Rowan County, North Carolina.\nThe district court of North Carolina \u201cis, under the provisions of G.S. \u00a7 7A-244, a court of general jurisdiction for the trial of civil actions and proceedings for . . . divorce.\u201d Austin v. Austin, 12 N.C. App. 286, 293, 183 S.E. 2d 420, 426 (1971). G.S. \u00a7 50-3, which states that summons for divorce proceedings shall be returnable to the court of the county in which either plaintiff or defendant resides, and G.S. \u00a7 50-8, which states that a complainant who is a nonresident of this State shall bring any divorce action in the county of defendant\u2019s residence, are not jurisdictional, and relate only to venue. These statutory venue requirements may be waived. See Smith v. Smith, 226 N.C. 506, 39 S.E. 2d 391 (1946); see also Denson v. Denson, 255 N.C. 703, 122 S.E. 2d 507 (1961); Nelms v. Nelms, 250 N.C. 237, 108 S.E. 2d 529 (1959). If an action for divorce be instituted in a county in the State other than the county of proper venue, \u201cthe action may be tried therein, unless the defendant before the time of answering expires demands in writing that the trial be had in the proper county.\u201d Smith v. Smith, supra at 509, 39 S.E. 2d at 393-94.\nIn the present case, defendant made no appearance and obviously made no motion to remove the case to Rowan County; thus, venue was waived. The district court in Mecklenburg County had jurisdiction to try the action, and the order dismissing the action must be reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings to the district court held in Mecklenburg County.\nThe cost of the appeal to this Court will be taxed against the plaintiff.\nReversed and remanded.\nChief Judge MORRIS and Judge VAUGHN concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "HEDRICK, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Ronald Williams for plaintiff appellant.", "No counsel for defendant appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "GWENDOLYN PARKS SMITH v. LONNIE SMITH\nNo. 8126DC814\n(Filed 20 April 1982)\nDivorce and Alimony \u00a7 1\u2014 nonresident plaintiff \u2014 jurisdiction of court in county where defendant does not reside\nWhere plaintiff, a resident of the state of Virginia, filed an action for absolute divorce in the district court of Mecklenburg County, and defendant resided in Rowan County, the district court in Mecklenburg had jurisdiction to try the action since defendant made no appearance and made no motion to remove the case to Rowan County. G.S. \u00a7 7A-244; G.S. \u00a7 50-8.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Lanning, Judge. Judgment entered 29 June 1981 in District Court, MECKLENBURG County. Heard in the Court of Appeals on 31 March 1982.\nRonald Williams for plaintiff appellant.\nNo counsel for defendant appellee." }, "file_name": "0812-01", "first_page_order": 844, "last_page_order": 845 }