{
  "id": 8523220,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. STEVEN T. MILLER",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Miller",
  "decision_date": "1985-10-15",
  "docket_number": "No. 842SC1199",
  "first_page": "436",
  "last_page": "439",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "77 N.C. App. 436"
    }
  ],
  "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": "35 S.E. 2d 414",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1945,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "225 N.C. 450",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8610882
      ],
      "year": 1945,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/225/0450-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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": "318 S.E. 2d 542",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "70 N.C. App. 131",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8520843
      ],
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/70/0131-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 385,
    "char_count": 5845,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.788,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.151624195677629e-08,
      "percentile": 0.38235588252442515
    },
    "sha256": "6fd5b5e4306447b549190b8416d9066e2779d33ca0963a1a311832e6046261c5",
    "simhash": "1:caead164e5bfb361",
    "word_count": 979
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:22:01.691260+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Wells and WHICHARD concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. STEVEN T. MILLER"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PHILLIPS, Judge.\nIn July 1981 in the District Court of Beaufort County defendant was convicted of failing to support his illegitimate child and his seven months prison sentence was suspended on condition that he pay $25 each week toward the child\u2019s support. The amount of the weekly payments was later reduced to $15. In August 1984 when defendant was admittedly $2,485 behind on the payments, he was found in contempt of the support order and was committed to jail, with the proviso that he can purge himself of the contempt by paying $40 into court each week until the ar-rearage is discharged. In substance, the court\u2019s findings of fact were that: Defendant is totally disabled because of a work-related spinal cord injury and his only income is a weekly workers\u2019 compensation payment in the amount of $133; because of his injury he is unable to control his kidneys and bowels, often has blisters on his legs and buttocks, and requires frequent medical attention by his neurologist in Greenville and by his orthopedist and urologist at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, where multiple surgery is planned; defendant\u2019s weekly expenses are $37.50 for rent, $15.00 for utilities and $35.00 for groceries; and \u201cthe defendant has transportation expenses, primarily for cab fare, in that the defendant does not own a car and lives alone.\u201d\nDefendant\u2019s contention that the findings made do not support the order imprisoning him unless he hereafter pays $40 each week on the arrearage is well taken. Since the manifest purpose of the order appealed from is to coerce defendant into complying with the previous order of the court, it is an order of civil contempt. G.S. 5A-21; Brower v. Brower, 70 N.C. App. 131, 318 S.E. 2d 542 (1984). Before a previous order of child support can be enforced by civil imprisonment which can be avoided by paying money it must first appear that the defendant is capable of making the payments required. Teachey v. Teachey, 46 N.C. App. 332, 264 S.E. 2d 786 (1980). The record here does not show that defendant is capable of paying $40 a week into court. While the court\u2019s findings show that defendant has $45 left from his weekly benefits check after paying his bills for rent, utilities and groceries, they do not show what his transportation and other necessary expenses amount to; and under the circumstances recorded we cannot assume that these expenses amount to $5 or less each week. Though the court found that defendant must hire others, usually a taxi, to take him wherever he has to go, it did not find how much transportation he requires or what it costs. The expense of hiring someone just to take him to the offices of the several doctors that treat him, two of whom are situated more than a hundred miles from Greenville where he now lives, could be considerable; as could the weekly cost of taking him to the grocery store, drug store, barber shop, laundry, bank and other places that he has to go. Nor did the court make any finding as to the cost of defendant\u2019s other necessary living expenses \u2014for clothing, laundry, dry cleaning, medicine, toilet articles, etc. We therefore vacate the order appealed from and remand the matter to the District Court for a hearing de novo on the motion involved.\nBut we reject defendant\u2019s further contention that requiring him to pay child support out of his workers\u2019 compensation benefits is forbidden by G.S. 97-21. This statute, in pertinent part, provides that \u201c[n]o claim for compensation under this Article shall be assignable, and all compensation and claims therefor shall be exempt from all claims of creditors and from taxes.\u201d The obligation to support one\u2019s children is not a \u201cdebt\u201d in the legal sense of the word, Ritchie v. White, 225 N.C. 450, 35 S.E. 2d 414 (1945), and leaving aside the other circumstances that must be considered a parent\u2019s duty to support his children is not measured by the source of his means or income, but their extent. Too, helping to sustain the dependents of employees disabled on the job is one of the main purposes of our Workers\u2019 Compensation Act.\nVacated and remanded.\nJudges Wells and WHICHARD concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PHILLIPS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Thornburg, by Assistant Attorney General Clifton H. Duke, for the State.",
      "Franklin B. Johnston for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. STEVEN T. MILLER\nNo. 842SC1199\n(Filed 15 October 1985)\n1. Divorce and Alimony \u00a7 24.4\u2014 enforcement of child support order \u2014contempt\u2014 improper\nThe trial court\u2019s findings were insufficient to support an order imprisoning defendant unless he paid $40 each week on a child support arrearage where the court found that defendant was totally disabled because of a work related spinal cord injury; that his only income was a weekly workers\u2019 compensation payment; that he required frequent medical attention by a neurologist in Greenville and by an orthopedist and urologist at Duke University Medical Center; that defendant\u2019s expenses included transportation, primarily cab fare; and that defendant did not own a car and lived alone. The record did not show that defendant was capable of paying $40 a week into court because, while the court\u2019s findings showed that defendant had $45 left from his weekly benefits check after paying bills for rent, utilities, and groceries, they did not show what his transportation and other necessary expenses were. G.S. 5A-21.\n2. Divorce and Alimony \u00a7 24; Master and Servant \u00a7 79.1 \u2014 workers\u2019 compensation \u2014 not exempt from child support obligation\nThe obligation to support one\u2019s children is not a debt in the legal sense of the word and a court was not forbidden by G.S. 97-21 from requiring defendant to pay child support out of his workers\u2019 compensation benefits.\nAppeal by defendant from Horner, Judge. Order entered 13 August 1984 in District Court, BEAUFORT County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 27 August 1985.\nAttorney General Thornburg, by Assistant Attorney General Clifton H. Duke, for the State.\nFranklin B. Johnston for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0436-01",
  "first_page_order": 468,
  "last_page_order": 471
}
