{
  "id": 790217,
  "name": "KENNETH R. POTTS v. SUSAN TUTTEROW (POTTS)",
  "name_abbreviation": "Potts v. Tutterow",
  "decision_date": "1995-04-07",
  "docket_number": "No. 257A94",
  "first_page": "97",
  "last_page": "98",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "340 N.C. 97"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "442 S.E.2d 90",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "114 N.C. App. 360",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8527578
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/114/0360-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 213,
    "char_count": 2924,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.711,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.2744091201945455e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7841215839224603
    },
    "sha256": "520d0a7b6726dd3f3428a61da5d00d6a0f239efa2a5ac04a0e5274b87745aaa7",
    "simhash": "1:6aedd51613eee012",
    "word_count": 482
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:34:40.112900+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "KENNETH R. POTTS v. SUSAN TUTTEROW (POTTS)"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nThe Court agrees with the holding of the majority opinion that the \u201clump sum\u201d alimony award in the present case did not vest prior to defendant\u2019s remarriage. Thus, pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 5046.9(b) (1987), defendant\u2019s subsequent remarriage terminated plaintiff\u2019s obligation to pay defendant alimony.\nUnder N.C.G.S. \u00a7 50-16.9, \u201c[i]f a dependent spouse who is receiving alimony under a judgment or order of a court of this State shall remarry, said alimony shall terminate.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 50-16.9(b) (emphasis added). N.C.G.S. \u00a7 50-16.7 states, \u201cAlimony or alimony pendente lite shall be paid by lump sum payment, [or] periodic payments . . . as the court may order.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 5046.7(a) (emphasis added).\n\u201cVested\u201d or \u201caccrued\u201d alimony is defined as \u201c[a]limony which is due but not yet paid.\u201d Black\u2019s Law Dictionary 21 (6th ed. 1990). Thus, if under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 50-16.7(a), the court has ordered alimony in a single lump sum payment and this lump sum has not been paid, such alimony has vested or accrued. Similarly, if under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 50-16.7(a), the court has ordered alimony in periodic payments and payments have come due but have not been paid, these payments have also vested or accrued. In either case, the dependent spouse\u2019s remarriage would not terminate the ordered amounts that had vested or accrued by virtue of being \u201cdue and payable.\u201d\nIn the present case, however, although the trial court delineated the alimony as a \u201clump sum,\u201d or as a \u201cfixed amount,\u201d the payment methodology was not in a single payment but instead was in periodic payments. Therefore, the majority correctly determined that defendant\u2019s remarriage terminated the monthly alimony obligations not yet due and payable. Accordingly, we affirm the holding of the majority.\nAFFIRMED.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Petree Stockton, L.L.P., by Lynn P Burleson and Mark Conger, for plaintiff-appellee.",
      "Morrow, Alexander, Task & Long, by C. R. \u201cSkip\u201d Long, Jr. and Victor M. Lefkowitz, for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "KENNETH R. POTTS v. SUSAN TUTTEROW (POTTS)\nNo. 257A94\n(Filed 7 April 1995)\nDivorce and Separation \u00a7 223 (NCI4th)\u2014 lump sum alimony\u2014 periodic payments \u2014 total not vested \u2014 termination by remarriage\nEven though the trial court delineated the total amount of alimony due to defendant wife as a \u201clump sum\u201d or a \u201cfixed amount,\u201d where the payment methodology was not in a single payment but instead was in periodic payments, the total alimony award did not vest at the time of the court\u2019s order, and the wife\u2019s remarriage terminated the monthly alimony obligations not yet due and payable. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 50-16.9(b).\nAm Jur 2d, Divorce and Separation \u00a7\u00a7 630 et seq.\nAppeal by defendant pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 114 N.C. App. 360, 442 S.E.2d 90 (1994), affirming an order entered by Johnson (Robert W.), C.J., on 13 November 1992 in District Court, Davie County. Heard in the Supreme Court 14 March 1995.\nPetree Stockton, L.L.P., by Lynn P Burleson and Mark Conger, for plaintiff-appellee.\nMorrow, Alexander, Task & Long, by C. R. \u201cSkip\u201d Long, Jr. and Victor M. Lefkowitz, for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0097-01",
  "first_page_order": 129,
  "last_page_order": 130
}