{
  "id": 8522243,
  "name": "BEAUFORT COUNTY, BY AND THROUGH ITS CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, ex rel. MARGARET KING v. WILLIAM E. HOPKINS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Beaufort County ex rel. King v. Hopkins",
  "decision_date": "1983-05-17",
  "docket_number": "No. 822DC608",
  "first_page": "321",
  "last_page": "323",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "62 N.C. App. 321"
    }
  ],
  "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": "164 S.E. 2d 39",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "41-42"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 N.C. App. 133",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8553567
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "136"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/3/0133-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "176 S.E. 2d 756",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "277 N.C. 188",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8563654
      ],
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/277/0188-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "174 S.E. 2d 8",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1970,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "10"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "8 N.C. App. 234",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8550385
      ],
      "year": 1970,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "237"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/8/0234-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "137 S.E. 2d 840",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1964,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "843"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "262 N.C. 446",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8568134
      ],
      "year": 1964,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "449"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/262/0446-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "225 S.E. 2d 816",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "822"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "290 N.C. 98",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560631
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "107"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/290/0098-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "260 S.E. 2d 812",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "44 N.C. App. 339",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8552721
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/44/0339-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 298,
    "char_count": 5031,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.833,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.1618190013584228e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7700070544653376
    },
    "sha256": "f04a50e3c3bd70649a3c1ee3524da01b2f1541657b9e694ea38bb512c78de0d8",
    "simhash": "1:87a461c162efa2d1",
    "word_count": 858
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:59.213578+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Webb and Braswell concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "BEAUFORT COUNTY, BY AND THROUGH ITS CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, ex rel. MARGARET KING v. WILLIAM E. HOPKINS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WHICHARD, Judge.\nI.\nOn 8 August 1978 Margaret L. King executed a sworn affirmation of paternity which stated that she was the mother and defendant was the father, of a minor child. On the same date defendant executed a sworn acknowledgment of paternity declaring that he was in fact the father of the child. On the basis of these documents the trial court entered an Order of Paternity, which had the force and effect of a judgment. G.S. 110432(a) (Cum. Supp. 1981).\nOn 12 September 1978 defendant executed a sworn voluntary support agreement consenting to pay support for the child. On 19 September 1978 the court entered an order, which had the force and effect of a court order of support, approving this agreement. G.S. 110-133 (Cum. Supp. 1981).\nDefendant made some payments, but failed to make others. The court issued several show cause and contempt orders.\nOn 28 September 1981, through counsel, defendant filed a motion \u201cpursuant to Rule 60(b)(2), (3) and (6)\u201d seeking relief from the voluntary support agreement. At a hearing on the motion both defendant and the mother testified that defendant was not the child\u2019s father. Defendant testified, in pertinent part, as follows:\nI have never had sexual intercourse with [the mother] and am not the father of her child .... The only reason I signed an Acknowledgment of Paternity and Voluntary Support Agreement was because I was forced to do so by an employee of the Beaufort County Department of Social Services. He told me I had to sign the papers.\nThe mother testified: \u201cI signed an Affirmation of Paternity on August 8, 1978 saying that [defendant] was the father of my child . . ., but I was wrong. No, he is not the father .... At one time I thought maybe he was the father, but he\u2019s not.\u201d\nThe court found as a fact that defendant was not the father of the child. Pursuant to G.S. 1A-1, Rule 60(b)(6), it vacated the voluntary support agreement and struck an order for payment of child support arrearages.\nPlaintiff appeals.\nII.\nThe voluntary support agreement indicates that the child is receiving public assistance. Plaintiff-county thus had an interest in the support order, and had standing to resist defendant\u2019s motion. See Cox v. Cox, 44 N.C. App. 339, 260 S.E. 2d 812 (1979).\nIII.\nThe order appealed from was grounded upon a finding of fact that defendant was not the father of the child. It thus appears entered under a misapprehension of the applicable law.\nG.S. 110432(b) (Cum. Supp. 1981), which relates to child support orders such as the one here, in pertinent part provides: \u201cThe prior judgment as to paternity shall be res judicata as to that issue and shall not be reconsidered by the court. \u201d (Emphasis supplied.) See also Tidwell v. Booker, 290 N.C. 98, 107, 225 S.E. 2d 816, 822 (1976); State v. Ellis, 262 N.C. 446, 449, 137 S.E. 2d 840, 843 (1964); State v. Green, 8 N.C. App. 234, 237, 174 S.E. 2d 8, 10, aff\u2019d, 277 N.C. 188, 176 S.E. 2d 756 (1970); State v. Coffey, 3 N.C. App. 133, 136, 164 S.E. 2d 39, 41-42 (1968).\nDefendant\u2019s motion related solely to the support agreement which, by virtue of the court\u2019s approval, had the effect of an order for support. It did not seek relief from the acknowledgment of paternity which, by virtue of the court\u2019s approval, had the effect of a judgment. G.S. 110-132(b) (Cum. Supp. 1981) expressly prohibited relitigation of the paternity issue in a proceeding related solely to the order for support.\nIV.\nThe voluntary support agreement may, upon motion and a showing of changed circumstances, be modified or vacated at any time. G.S. 50-13.7, 110-133 (Cum. Supp. 1981). It cannot, however, be modified or vacated on the basis of relitigation, in a proceeding related solely to the order for support, of the paternity issue. That issue is res judicata and \u201cshall not be reconsidered by the court\u201d in such a proceeding.\nV.\nThe order is thus vacated. The cause is remanded for such further proceedings, consistent with this opinion, as the parties may desire.\nVacated and remanded.\nJudges Webb and Braswell concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WHICHARD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Rodman, Rodman, Holscher & Francisco, by Christopher B. McLendon, for plaintiff appellant.",
      "No brief filed for defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "BEAUFORT COUNTY, BY AND THROUGH ITS CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, ex rel. MARGARET KING v. WILLIAM E. HOPKINS\nNo. 822DC608\n(Filed 17 May 1983)\nParent and Child \u00a7 7\u2014 voluntary child support agreement \u2014 no relitigation of paternity issue\nA voluntary child support agreement could not be modified or vacated on the basis of relitigation of the paternity issue in a proceeding related solely to the support agreement which, by virtue of the court\u2019s approval, had the effect of an order for support. G.S. 110-132(b). G.S. 1A-1, Rule 60(b)(6).\nAPPEAL by plaintiff from Ward, Judge. Order entered 17 November 1981 in District Court, BEAUFORT County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 21 April 1983.\nPlaintiff appeals from an order, pursuant to G.S. 1A-1, Rule 60(b)(6), vacating a voluntary support agreement and striking an order for payment of child support arrearages.\nRodman, Rodman, Holscher & Francisco, by Christopher B. McLendon, for plaintiff appellant.\nNo brief filed for defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0321-01",
  "first_page_order": 353,
  "last_page_order": 355
}