{
  "id": 8549587,
  "name": "ELIZABETH R. TAYLOR v. RICHARD F. TAYLOR",
  "name_abbreviation": "Taylor v. Taylor",
  "decision_date": "1970-08-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 7016DC358",
  "first_page": "260",
  "last_page": "262",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "9 N.C. App. 260"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 243,
    "char_count": 4031,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.551,
    "sha256": "34646ff1e5650812e4b29258cb7c6e1fd3398851f948343d12baa2785ffa4278",
    "simhash": "1:3e92f5e466b8cebd",
    "word_count": 643
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:50:15.842675+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Campbell and Parker, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "ELIZABETH R. TAYLOR v. RICHARD F. TAYLOR"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Vaughn, J.\nPlaintiff\u2019s complaint contained allegations which, if proven, would have entitled her to alimony. G.S. 50-16.2. Plaintiff offered no evidence tending to show the existence of any grounds for alimony. All the evidence was devoted to the financial circumstances of the parties. The record is void of a scintilla of evidence as to the conduct of the defendant or the cause of the separation. Plaintiff, throughout her testimony, referred to \u201cour separation\u201d and at one point \u201csince our mutual separation.\u201d There is no evidence to support the court\u2019s conclusion that the defendant had offered such indignities to the person of plaintiff as to render her condition intolerable and life burdensome. Plaintiff\u2019s action for alimony without divorce should have been dismissed and judgment rendered for defendant. There is also a complete absence of any evidence in the record to support the court\u2019s conclusion as to the best interests of the children with respect to custody.\nThe judgment entered by the district court judge is reversed. The case is remanded for a new hearing on the question of custody and child support to the end that an order, based on proper findings of fact which are supported by competent evidence, may be entered.\nReversed and Remanded.\nCampbell and Parker, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Vaughn, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Johnson, Heclgpeth, Biggs and Campbell by John W. Campbell for plaintiff appellee.",
      "McLean, Stacy, Henry & McLean by H. E. Stacy, Jr., for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ELIZABETH R. TAYLOR v. RICHARD F. TAYLOR\nNo. 7016DC358\n(Filed 5 August 1970)\nDivorce and Alimony \u00a7\u00a7 18, 22\u2014 alimony and child support \u2014 sufficiency of evidence \u2014 remand\nIn the wife\u2019s action seeking alimony pendente lite, alimony without divorce, and child custody and support, the wife presented no evidence to support her demands for alimony and for custody and support; and the action is remanded for a new hearing on the questions of child custody and support.\nAppeal by defendant from Floyd, District Judge, 5 February 1970, Non-jury Session of Robeson County District Court.\nOn 23 December 1969 plaintiff instituted this action seeking alimony pendente lite, alimony without divorce, custody of minor children born of her marriage to defendant and child support. Plaintiff\u2019s complaint contained allegations of adultery, abandonment and indignities to the person of the plaintiff. Defendant answered and denied the material allegations of the complaint. Defendant alleged that when the parties separated, approximately two years prior to the institution of this action, they mutually agreed to live separately and apart from each other. Apparently there was no hearing on the question of alimony pendente lite. The case was heard on its merits by the trial judge without a jury.\nBoth parties offered evidence. The judge made the following \u201cfindings of fact\u201d:\n\u201c. . . [T] he defendant has offered such indignities to the person of the plaintiff as to render her condition intolerable and life burdensome. The plaintiff is a dependent spouse and the defendant owes an obligation of support to the plaintiff and to the children of the marriage, named in the Second Cause of Action in the Complaint herein. The defendant is a person of means and is able physically and financially to provide alimony for the plaintiff and support for the children named in the complaint. Both of the parties are fit and proper persons to have the care, custody and control of the children of the marriage, and it is in the best interests of said children that their primary care, custody and control be placed with the plaintiff, subject to the right to the defendant to reasonable visitation privileges....\u201d\nThe judgment then ordered that plaintiff be given custody of the minor children; defendant transfer certain cash and property to plaintiff; plaintiff transfer certain property to defendant; defendant pay a fixed sum monthly as alimony to plaintiff; defendant pay a fixed sum for child support and pay plaintiff\u2019s attorney a fixed sum for representing plaintiff.\nDefendant appealed.\nJohnson, Heclgpeth, Biggs and Campbell by John W. Campbell for plaintiff appellee.\nMcLean, Stacy, Henry & McLean by H. E. Stacy, Jr., for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0260-01",
  "first_page_order": 284,
  "last_page_order": 286
}
