Cole, N. Pursuant to N. See Royall v. Sawyer, N. Risley, N. However, our Supreme Court has held that a district court may enter an interim order for child support which contemplates a permanent retroactive order will be entered at a later time and may require larger child support payments than required by the interim order. Sikes v. Sikes, N. The Court went further to hold that since no final determination had been made regarding the proper amount of child support, the child support order was temporary and was subsequently subject to modification.
Finally, the Court held that the requisite showing of changed circumstances as set forth by Ellenberger v. Ellenberger, 63 N. That is, rather than being a final determination as to the issue of child support, the order provided for a sum certain amount of support to be paid until custody could be decided.
Taylor, N. In setting 17 July as the effective date of the application of the guidelines amount of child support, Judge Culler was ordering prospective support, as the time period in question fell between the date plaintiff filed her complaint and the date of the hearing on the final determination of child support. We therefore conclude that the trial judge properly followed the law in modifying the temporary order for child support, and that he did not abuse his discretion in setting the effective date of the child support payments. In this appeal, defendant Timothy Ray Miller, appeals from judgment entered 24 April , finding him in contempt for failure to pay child support as ordered by Judge Culler in the 22 December judgment.
Defendant first argues that since we should find the order appealed from in COA void the 22 December order , we should accordingly find that the 24 April order finding him in contempt to be void. However, having found the prior order to be valid, we reject this contention.
Superior Court Future Court Dates
Next, defendant asserts that the trial court did not make the findings of fact required by N. Teachey, 46 N. Mauney, N. Nobles, N.
- Tobias (Toby) Hampson?
- Davidson County Courthouse | North Carolina Judicial Branch!
- search and call disciples of christ.
- gurly punk backgrounds for the computer.
- United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina - Wikipedia.
- free usa people search phone number!
Based on the evidence and the trial court's findings, we conclude the record fully supports these findings and the trial court's conclusion that defendant was in willful contempt of the 22 December order. We also find no merit in defendant's argument that the trial court's contempt order was unsupported by the evidence. This evidence fully supports the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law drawn therefrom, finding defendant in willful contempt. Defendant's final contention is that the trial court erred by ordering defendant to remain gainfully employed. In acceding to defendant's request without defendant making any showing of any other source of income from which these payments could be made, the trial court was within its prerogative to order defendant to remain gainfully employed to ensure payment of his child support obligation.
As to the majority's discussion of the trial court's contempt order, I dissent. LaValley, N. In LaValley, this Court deemed the passage of twenty-three months between the entry of the temporary order and the filing of the plaintiff's motion in the cause seeking modification of the prior order unreasonable and concluded the temporary order had converted into a final order requiring the trial court to employ a substantial change of circumstances test. In this case, the temporary order was signed by Judge Taylor on 24 February In May , the parties agreed to a mediated settlement conference on the issues of child custody and child support, and the trial court entered an order to this effect filed 8 May Subsequent to the mediated settlement conference, the parties and the trial court signed the memorandum, which was filed 17 July The formal order was filed 25 September and was followed by Judge Honeycutt's order filed 16 November granting defendant's Rule 60 motion as to child support and Judge Culler's order filed 22 December from which defendant appeals.
The record thus reflects a reasonable effort by the parties to move the case along and resolve the issues of child custody and child support. Accordingly, the temporary nature of Judge Taylor's order was preserved, obviating the need to make any findings regarding a substantial change of circumstances prior to assessing child support. The memorandum signed by the parties and the trial court and filed 17 July contemplated the entry of a subsequent formal order that was to reflect the agreement contained in the memorandum.
If such a formal order is identical in its terms and provisions to the memorandum, it is deemed valid. Buckingham v. Buckingham, N. The memorandum is the court document that represents the final judgment on the issues contained therein. In this case, the formal order was identical to the memorandum in respect to the issue of child custody and therefore valid as to this issue. As the formal order differed from the memorandum in respect to child support, the trial court properly set aside that part of the formal order upon motion by defendant.
Defendant argues the memorandum is invalid because the trial court never met with the parties and thus failed to examine the parties as required by Tevepaugh v. Tevepaugh, N. I disagree. The memorandum includes a statement, signed by the trial court, attesting the trial court had read the terms of the agreement to the parties, inquired as to the voluntary nature of the parties' agreement and their understanding thereof, and informed the parties of the legal effect of the memorandum.
There is no evidence in the record to refute this statement.
Accordingly, defendant's argument is without merit. Defendant further contends the trial court failed to make any findings that defendant's conduct was willful. In contempt proceedings, the trial court's findings of facts are conclusive on appeal when supported by competent evidence. Shumaker, N. See Sowers, N. In summary, I agree with the majority's decision to affirm 1 Judge Honeycutt's denial of defendant's motion to set aside the formal order as it relates to child custody and 2 Judge Culler's child support order but believe the contempt order must be reversed.
MILLER v. MILLER | FindLaw
The majority further discusses the calculation and the retrospective nature of the child support awarded by Judge Culler. As these issues were not argued in defendant's brief to this Court, I would not address them. See N.
See id. The trial court, however, cannot dictate the source of the funds from which child support is to be paid.
Davidson County Courthouse
By submitting this form, you agree to FindLaw. We respect your privacy. Thank you for subscribing! Explore Resources For Practice Management. Steps are being taken to make this transition as easy as possible. Forms and links will be available on the Davidson County website and additional information will be released as to the process of this implementation. We ask, however, that you submit requests as soon as possible as the completion of the certificate may take up to two 2 business days.
Provided is the link below to test the process prior to March 1, Skip to Main Content. Sign In. Who may obtain a certified copy of a birth, death, or marriage certificate? What are the prerequisites to registration? Does an instrument need to be notarized before it can be recorded?