{
  "id": 8526951,
  "name": "MAX R. WHITESELL, JR. v. PAMELA CHERYL GARNER WHITESELL",
  "name_abbreviation": "Whitesell v. Whitesell",
  "decision_date": "1982-11-16",
  "docket_number": "No. 8220DC23",
  "first_page": "552",
  "last_page": "553",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "59 N.C. App. 552"
    }
  ],
  "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": "183 S.E. 2d 428",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "430"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "12 N.C. App. 390",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8549830
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "392"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/12/0390-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "279 S.E. 2d 905",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1981,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "question not explicitly presented, but order of periodic payments for a specified period implicitly approved"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "53 N.C. App. 18",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8519330
      ],
      "year": 1981,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "question not explicitly presented, but order of periodic payments for a specified period implicitly approved"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/53/0018-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "265 S.E. 2d 626",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "630"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "46 N.C. App. 438",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551243
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "444"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/46/0438-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "154 S.E. 2d 71",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1967,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "74"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "270 N.C. 253",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8566989
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "257"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/270/0253-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 229,
    "char_count": 2881,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.626,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.783882685531946e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8354546925322673
    },
    "sha256": "f5a21edb65ea046d148bc5f8a0f553eaf07d877ed894c0cd0a7db16e79e67bc3",
    "simhash": "1:83ade6af44e8b26c",
    "word_count": 491
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:55:54.350150+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges VAUGHN and Wells concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "MAX R. WHITESELL, JR. v. PAMELA CHERYL GARNER WHITESELL"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WHICHARD, Judge.\nThe court awarded alimony to defendant in the sum of $30.00 per week, \u201cbeginning Friday, July 3, 1981 and each and every Friday thereafter until and including January 1, 1982.\u201d Defendant contends the court erred in providing for termination of the payments after a specified period. The contention is without merit.\nAlimony is \u201cpayment for the support and maintenance of a spouse, either in lump sum or on a continuing basis.\u201d G.S. 50-16.1(1) (emphasis supplied). It may be \u201cby lump sum payment, periodic payments, or by transfer of title or possession of . . . property, as the court may order.\u201d G.S. 5046.7(a) (emphasis supplied).\nOur Supreme Court has described an award of alimony for a specified period only, such as that here, as \u201cindu[bit]ably alimony in gross or \u2018lump sum alimony.\u2019 \u201d Mitchell v. Mitchell, 270 N.C. 253, 257, 154 S.E. 2d 71, 74 (1967). This Court has stated that the statutes cited above \u201cauthorize the court, in a proper case, to order alimony to be paid in a lump sum.\u201d Taylor v. Taylor, 46 N.C. App. 438, 444, 265 S.E. 2d 626, 630 (1980). See also Markham v. Markham, 53 N.C. App. 18, 279 S.E. 2d 905 (1981) (question not explicitly presented, but order of periodic payments for a specified period implicitly approved). This Court has also stated:\nUnder the statutory authority vested in the trial judge he could award a lump payment or monthly payments. The amount of the allowance for subsistence is a matter for the trial judge. The exercise of his discretion in this respect is not reviewable except in case of an abuse of discretion.\nAustin v. Austin, 12 N.C. App. 390, 392, 183 S.E. 2d 428, 430 (1971).\nPursuant to the foregoing authorities, the court in its discretion could award lump sum alimony for a specified period only. The amount of the award was also in its discretion, subject to review only for abuse. We find no abuse of discretion in the sum awarded.\nCounsel for defendant indicated in oral argument that he would not seriously pursue the other two contentions argued in his brief. We have examined the contentions, and we find them without merit.\nAffirmed.\nJudges VAUGHN and Wells concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WHICHARD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hurley E. Thompson, Jr., for plaintiff appellee.",
      "Ottway Burton, P.A., for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MAX R. WHITESELL, JR. v. PAMELA CHERYL GARNER WHITESELL\nNo. 8220DC23\n(Filed 16 November 1982)\nDivorce aud Alimony \u00a7 16.9\u2014 award of alimony for specified period \u2014 lump sum alimony\nAn award of alimony in the sum of $30.00 per week for a six-month period constituted an award of lump sum alimony which was proper under G.S. 50-16.1(1) and G.S. 50-16.7(a).\nAppeal by defendant from Huffman, Judge. Judgment entered 18 August 1981 in District Court, Moore County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 21 October 1982.\nDefendant appeals from a judgment which awarded her custody of the parties\u2019 minor child, support for the child, and alimony.\nHurley E. Thompson, Jr., for plaintiff appellee.\nOttway Burton, P.A., for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0552-01",
  "first_page_order": 584,
  "last_page_order": 585
}