{
  "id": 8358951,
  "name": "MAXINE TWITTY BERRY v. RAMSEUR DEVON BERRY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Berry v. Berry",
  "decision_date": "1987-11-17",
  "docket_number": "No. 8726DC338",
  "first_page": "624",
  "last_page": "626",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "87 N.C. App. 624"
    }
  ],
  "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": "285 S.E. 2d 281",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "55 N.C. App. 250",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8527082
      ],
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/55/0250-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 241,
    "char_count": 3401,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.822,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20296357046298838
    },
    "sha256": "4b2a6db87623ca73472f7b9d545c9e8d1632e6a6bb4b41f2a65c93f05420a645",
    "simhash": "1:fbfa1e65a00e159e",
    "word_count": 537
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:10:55.356094+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Johnson and Cozort concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "MAXINE TWITTY BERRY v. RAMSEUR DEVON BERRY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WELLS, Judge.\nDefendant contends that plaintiffs appeal should be dismissed as interlocutory according to this Court\u2019s holding in Stephenson v. Stephenson, 55 N.C. App. 250, 285 S.E. 2d 281 (1981). We agree. In Stephenson we held that orders awarding child support, alimony, and attorney\u2019s fees pendente lite are \u201cinterlocutory decrees which necessarily do not affect a substantial right from which lies an immediate appeal pursuant to G.S. 7A-27(d).\u201d The trial court\u2019s second Conclusion of Law states as follows: \u201cThat it is appropriate and in the best interests of the child that an Order for temporary child support be entered.\u201d [Emphasis added.] In addition, the court\u2019s order expressly provides that plaintiff\u2019s support payments shall be made twice monthly \u201cpending further Orders of the Court.\u201d [Emphasis added.] The employment of the word \u201cpending\u201d underlines the non-final character of the order in question.\nWe recognize that in the present case, unlike Stephenson, the child support order was the only order entered and was not expressly designated pendente lite by the court. Nevertheless here, as in Stephenson, the support order appealed from was a temporary one, entered provisionally pending a final determination to be made at a later date. It is the non-finality of the support order that brings the present case within the reach of Stephenson.\nIt follows that the child support order of 18 December 1986 is not subject to review by appeal and must be, and is,\nDismissed.\nJudges Johnson and Cozort concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WELLS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Tucker, Hicks, Moon, Hodge and Cranford, P.A., by Michael F. Schultze, for plaintiff-appellant.",
      "Flanary & Davies, by Kenneth T. Davies, for defendant-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MAXINE TWITTY BERRY v. RAMSEUR DEVON BERRY\nNo. 8726DC338\n(Filed 17 November 1987)\nDivorce and Alimony 8 24.11\u2014 temporary child support order \u2014 no immediate appeal\nThough a child support order was not expressly designated pendente lite by the court, it was nevertheless a temporary order, entered provisionally pending a final determination to be made at a later date, and there was therefore no right to immediate appeal from the order.\nAPPEAL by plaintiff from Johnston, Robert P., Judge. Order entered 18 December 1986 in Mecklenburg County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 21 October 1987.\nThis case takes its beginning in the dissolution of the marriage of Maxine Twitty Berry and Ramseur Devon Berry, who were married 27 December 1967 and separated 8 August 1980. The marriage yielded one child, Stephanie Colette Berry, born 20 April 1971. On 13 August 1980, plaintiff wife filed a complaint seeking child custody, child support, and attorney\u2019s fees. Defendant husband answered and counterclaimed for, inter alia, child custody and child support. On 18 October 1982, after trial, the district court granted custody to plaintiff and visitation rights to defendant.\nOn 17 June 1985, plaintiff mother was divested of custody of the minor child in a proceeding under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7A-647 of the Juvenile Code, and the minor child was placed with defendant father. On 29 October 1986, defendant filed a motion seeking partial child support. On 3 November, plaintiff served motions to dismiss defendant\u2019s petition on various grounds. On 18 December, the court examined the record, heard arguments by counsel, and awarded the defendant \u201ctemporary child support.\u201d From this award the plaintiff appeals.\nTucker, Hicks, Moon, Hodge and Cranford, P.A., by Michael F. Schultze, for plaintiff-appellant.\nFlanary & Davies, by Kenneth T. Davies, for defendant-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0624-01",
  "first_page_order": 652,
  "last_page_order": 654
}