Case ID: nc_247/html/0269-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

LETA ANDERSON v. W. J. ANDERSON
    (Filed 27 November, 1957)
    Divorce and Alimony § 12—
    Findings, supported by evidence, to the effect that defendant had obtained an absolute divorce in another State prior to the institution of plaintiff’s action for alimony without divorce, and that such foreign judgment was binding in this State under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Federal Constitution, held to support the court’s order denying plaintiff’s motion for alimony pendente lite and counsel fees.
    Appeal by plaintiff from Preyer, J., in Chambers, March 9, 1957.
    Civil action for alimony without divorce on the ground of abandonment and failure to provide necessary subsistence, G.S. 50-16. The action was instituted on April 3, 1954. By way of answer the defendant set up an absolute divorce decree granted by the Circuit Court of Duval County, Florida, on May 21, 1954. The plaintiff filed a reply in. which she denied the validity of the divorce and alleged that in obtaining it the defendant perpetrated a fraud upon the court. The plaintiff, upon proper motion in the cause, applied for alimony 'pendente lite and counsel fees.
    At the hearing of the motion, conflicting affidavits were introduced by the parties relative to the residence of W. J. Anderson in the State of Florida for the statutory period necessary to give the court of that State jurisdiction to try the divorce action. The defendant also introduced a copy of the divorce proceeding in the Circuit Court of Duval County, Florida.
    Judge Preyer found the facts as to residence and as to the divorce decree as contended for by the defendant, and concluded the decree of absolute divorce entered by the Florida court was valid, entitled to full faith and credit in the State of North Carolina. From these findings the court entered an order denying the plaintiff’s motion for alimony pendente lite and counsel fees. To this order the plaintiff excepted, and from it appealed.
    
      Haivorth and Riggs, Thomas Turner, By: John Haworth for plaintiff appellant.
    
    
      Robert M. Martin, James B. Lovelace for defendant appellee.
    
   Per Curiam.

The findings of Judge Preyer are supported by evidence. They are sufficient to and do support his order denying plaintiff’s motion for alimony pendente lite and counsel fees. The order of the Superior Court of Guilford County is

Affirmed.