Case Title: Cromer v. Cromer

Citation: 278 S.E.2d 518

Docket Number: 

State: north-carolina

Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

Date: 1981-06-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
278 S.E.2d 518 (1981) Janet Carolyn R. CROMER (Herman) v. Jack S. CROMER. No. 114. Supreme Court of North Carolina. June 2, 1981. Hatch, Little, Bunn, Jones, Few & Berry by John B. Ross, Raleigh, for defendant-appellant. Tharrington, Smith & Hargrove by J. Harold Tharrington and Carlyn G. Poole, Raleigh, for plaintiff-appellee. PER CURIAM. Defendant is a chief petty officer and is "Chief of the Boat" of the nuclear submarine USS Skate, homeported in Hawaii. Prior to the entry of the order of 6 November 1979, defendant attempted to obtain a stay of the proceedings under § 521 of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940, 50 U.S.C.App. §§ 501-91 (1976). The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of defendant's application on the basis that defendant's military service did not materially affect his ability to conduct his defense. It appeared to the Court of Appeals "that defendant's use of the Act was dictated by strategy rather than the necessities of military service." 49 N.C.App. at 408, 271 S.E.2d at 544. Attached to the defendant's petition for discretionary review to this Court was a letter from the defendant's commanding officer dated 14 November 1979 and addressed to the presiding judge. To that letter is attached an affidavit. Both of these documents appear in the defendant's petition for discretionary review and are mentioned in the briefs of both parties before this Court. That letter and the attached affidavit read as follows: Comes now Commander GEORGE R. FISTER, U. S. Navy, being first duly sworn deposes and says: The foregoing letter and affidavit are a part of the petition for discretionary review and were discussed in the briefs filed with this Court but were not a part of the record on appeal. Apparently the letter and affidavit do not appear in any lower court file. This omission is not explained in the record before us. On oral argument before this Court, defendant's counsel explained that he was unaware of these documents at the time the order was entered. He became aware of them and made their existence known to the judge of the district court after the hearing, and before the record on appeal was settled. We believe the trial court might have proceeded in another manner had it been aware of these documents. We believe that the trial court should reconsider the matter with the benefit of the foregoing letter and affidavit. In our supervisory capacity and in the interest of justice, we find it necessary to reverse the Court of Appeals. The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed. The order of Parker, J., dated 27 November 1979 increasing the amount of child support and ordering defendant's arrest and his order dated 5 March 1980 garnishing defendant's earnings are vacated. This matter is remanded to the Court of Appeals with instructions that it be further remanded to the District Court, Wake County for a new hearing on plaintiff's motion in the cause for increased child support and reasonable counsel fees. The District Court will ensure proper notice to the defendant and afford him a reasonable opportunity to be heard. REVERSED AND REMANDED.