{
  "id": 8524151,
  "name": "MIRIAM VAUGHN, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JOHN H. VAUGHN, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Vaughn v. Vaughn",
  "decision_date": "1990-07-17",
  "docket_number": "No. 8918DC1219",
  "first_page": "574",
  "last_page": "576",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "99 N.C. App. 574"
    }
  ],
  "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": "208 S.E.2d 282",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1974,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "283"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "23 N.C. App. 109",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8548119
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "110"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/23/0109-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "358 S.E.2d 47",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "320 N.C. 166",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4724867,
        4729541,
        4725739,
        4731630,
        4730074
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/320/0166-04",
        "/nc/320/0166-05",
        "/nc/320/0166-02",
        "/nc/320/0166-01",
        "/nc/320/0166-03"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "354 S.E.2d 291",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "294",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 N.C. App. 138",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        12169671
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "142",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/85/0138-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "217 S.E.2d 532",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "541"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "288 N.C. 183",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8565242
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "198"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/288/0183-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 329,
    "char_count": 4986,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.742,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.803526608896857e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8370177180213981
    },
    "sha256": "11a5ee1ab1e6adfbc3bd10c8fd9d4397ec6e3edf004bbdbe2e96a98d5f3a9ba8",
    "simhash": "1:e8c8ffab05860631",
    "word_count": 846
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:52.620321+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge HEDRICK and Judge JOHNSON concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "MIRIAM VAUGHN, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JOHN H. VAUGHN, Defendant-Appellant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "EAGLES, Judge.\nG.S. 1A-1, Rule 60(b) provides in pertinent part that\n[o]n motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:\nH* H* *\n(4) The judgment is void[.]\n\u201c[A] motion for relief under Rule 60(b) is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and appellate review is limited to determining whether the Court abused its discretion.\u201d Sink v. Easter, 288 N.C. 183, 198, 217 S.E.2d 532, 541 (1975).\nNotwithstanding the parties\u2019 arguments regarding the requirement that the court appoint counsel for defendant in this case, the principal question here is whether the contempt order is void or whether it is merely voidable. Defendant argues that the contempt order is void because counsel was not appointed to represent him at the show cause hearing. We disagree and find no abuse of discretion in the denial of defendant\u2019s Rule 60(b)(4) motion.\n\u201cIf a judgment is void, it must be from one or more of the following causes: 1. Want of jurisdiction over the subject matter; 2. Want of jurisdiction over the parties to the action, or some of them; or 3. Want of power to grant the relief contained in the judgment. In pronouncing judgments of the first and second classes, the court acts without jurisdiction, while in those of the third class, it acts in excess of jurisdiction.\u201d On the other hand, the Supreme Court has said that a judgment is not void where the court which renders it \u201chas authority to hear and determine the questions in dispute and control over the parties to the controversy. . . .\u201d In such case, the judgment is not void even though it may be contrary to law; it is voidable, but is binding on the parties until vacated or corrected in the proper manner.\nAllred v. Tucci, 85 N.C. App. 138, 142, 354 S.E.2d 291, 294, disc. rev. denied, 320 N.C. 166, 358 S.E.2d 47 (1987) (citations omitted). Stated otherwise, a judgment is not void if \u201cthe court had jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter and had authority to render the judgment entered.\u201d In re Brown, 23 N.C. App. 109, 110, 208 S.E.2d 282, 283 (1974).\nHere, defendant does not contend that the trial court was without jurisdiction or authority to enter the contempt order. He contends, instead, that the court committed an error of law by not appointing counsel for him. Assuming arguendo that defendant was entitled to appointed counsel at the show cause hearing, defendant has confused what constitutes an erroneous judgment with a void one. Because the court had jurisdiction and authority to enter the contempt order, the order is not void. Id. Therefore, a Rule 60(b)(4) motion is an inappropriate means to rectify the alleged error. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant\u2019s motion.\nFor the reasons stated, we find no error.\nNo error.\nChief Judge HEDRICK and Judge JOHNSON concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "EAGLES, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gregory L. Gorham for plaintiff-appellee.",
      "Central Carolina Legal Services, Inc., by Stanley B. Sprague, for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MIRIAM VAUGHN, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JOHN H. VAUGHN, Defendant-Appellant\nNo. 8918DC1219\n(Filed 17 July 1990)\nContempt of Court \u00a7 8 (NCI3d); Rules of Civil Procedure \u00a7 60.2 (NCI3d)\u2014 contempt order not void \u2014motion to set aside \u2014 inappropriate method to rectify alleged error\nWhere the trial court had jurisdiction and authority to enter a contempt order, the order was not void; therefore an N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 60(b)(4) motion was an inappropriate means to rectify the court\u2019s alleged error in failing to appoint an attorney for defendant at the contempt hearing, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant\u2019s motion.\nAm Jur 2d, Contempt \u00a7\u00a7 92, 115.\nAPPEAL by defendant from order entered 5 October 1989 by Judge Joseph E. Turner in GUILFORD County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 9 May 1990.\nDefendant appeals the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion. This litigation commenced when defendant was summoned to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for failure to pay court ordered child support. Defendant was not represented by counsel at the show cause hearing and did not request that the court appoint an attorney for him. The court\u2019s commitment order states that defendant represented that he was presently unemployed and living with his parents. The trial court found that defendant had received unemployment compensation for the period between 1 February 1989 and 26 June 1989 and that defendant failed to apply any of this money to his support obligation. The trial court found defendant in contempt and sentenced him to 29 days. The order did not provide for defendant\u2019s release prior to the expiration of 29 days. Defendant did not appeal to superior court pursuant to G.S. 5A-17 but instead filed a Rule 60(b)(4) motion, asserting that the contempt order was void because no attorney had been appointed for him. The Rule 60(b)(4) motion was denied and defendant appeals.\nGregory L. Gorham for plaintiff-appellee.\nCentral Carolina Legal Services, Inc., by Stanley B. Sprague, for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0574-01",
  "first_page_order": 604,
  "last_page_order": 606
}
