{
  "id": 8522729,
  "name": "G. REID DUSENBERRY, III v. SUE BROWN DUSENBERRY (now FOWLER)",
  "name_abbreviation": "Dusenberry v. Dusenberry",
  "decision_date": "1985-02-19",
  "docket_number": "No. 8415DC636",
  "first_page": "177",
  "last_page": "178",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "73 N.C. App. 177"
    }
  ],
  "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": "322 S.E. 2d 393",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "71 N.C. App. 242",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8525008
      ],
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/71/0242-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "325 S.E. 2d 260",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "72 N.C. App. 372",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8526819
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/72/0372-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "321 S.E. 2d 161",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "70 N.C. App. 665",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8524388
      ],
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/70/0665-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 178,
    "char_count": 2202,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.776,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.9432581987052656e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8482787992659031
    },
    "sha256": "4caf361c1e489c34b29293cf115a0408f994e0fb8edea641ff645fb77d821536",
    "simhash": "1:c933705370b545e6",
    "word_count": 349
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:55:13.639601+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges WELLS and BECTON concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "G. REID DUSENBERRY, III v. SUE BROWN DUSENBERRY (now FOWLER)"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WHICHARD, Judge.\nThis is an equitable distribution action pursuant to G.S. 50-20, 21, in which the court concluded as a matter of law that an equal division of the marital property was not equitable. It did so based in part upon findings that defendant-wife \u201cbegan having an adulterous affair . . . and began neglecting the plaintiff and their three minor children\u201d and that this conduct \u201cwas a major reason for the break-up of this marriage . . . and . . . was the only serious and significant mistreatment of either party by the other party during the course of this marriage.\u201d It concluded that consideration of \u201cthe relative fault of the parties leading to the disintegration of their marriage . . . [was] just and proper.\u201d\nSubsequent to entry of this order, this Court held that fault is not a relevant or appropriate consideration in determining an equitable distribution of marital property. Hinton v. Hinton, 70 N.C. App. 665, 321 S.E. 2d 161 (1984); see also Wade v. Wade, 72 N.C. App. 372, 325 S.E. 2d 260 (1985); Smith v. Smith, 71 N.C. App. 242, 322 S.E. 2d 393 (1984). The award here is clearly grounded upon fault-based findings regarding an adulterous affair on the part of defendant-wife. Because the court considered this irrelevant and inappropriate matter in awarding the marital property, the order must be vacated and the cause remanded for a new order based solely upon relevant and appropriate findings.\nVacated and remanded.\nJudges WELLS and BECTON concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WHICHARD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Holt, Spencer & Longest, by James C. Spencer, Jr., and Hunter, Wharton & Howell, by John V. Hunter, III, for plaintiff appellee.",
      "Boyce, Mitchell, Burns & Smith, P.A., by Carole S. Gailor, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "G. REID DUSENBERRY, III v. SUE BROWN DUSENBERRY (now FOWLER)\nNo. 8415DC636\n(Filed 19 February 1985)\nDivorce and Alimony \u00a7 30\u2014 equitable distribution \u2014 fault-based findings inappropriate\nFindings in an equitable distribution action regarding an adulterous affair by the wife were irrelevant and inappropriate to the award of marital property. G.S. 50-20, 21.\nAPPEAL by defendant from Allen, Judge. Order entered 19 April 1984 in District Court, Alamance County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 8 February 1985.\nHolt, Spencer & Longest, by James C. Spencer, Jr., and Hunter, Wharton & Howell, by John V. Hunter, III, for plaintiff appellee.\nBoyce, Mitchell, Burns & Smith, P.A., by Carole S. Gailor, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0177-01",
  "first_page_order": 209,
  "last_page_order": 210
}