Case Name: BUNCOMBE COUNTY by and through its Child Enforcement Support Agency, ex rel. MARY FRANCES LOMBROIA, and MARY FRANCES LOMBROIA, Plaintiffs/Appellees v. RONALD E. PEEK, Defendant/Appellant
Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1992-10-20
Citations: 107 N.C. App. 723
Docket Number: No. 9128DC1068
Parties: BUNCOMBE COUNTY by and through its Child Enforcement Support Agency, ex rel. MARY FRANCES LOMBROIA, and MARY FRANCES LOMBROIA, Plaintiffs/Appellees v. RONALD E. PEEK, Defendant/Appellant
Judges: Chief Judge HEDRICK and Judge LEWIS concur.
Reporter: North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports
Volume: 107
Pages: 723–724

Head Matter:
BUNCOMBE COUNTY by and through its Child Enforcement Support Agency, ex rel. MARY FRANCES LOMBROIA, and MARY FRANCES LOMBROIA, Plaintiffs/Appellees v. RONALD E. PEEK, Defendant/Appellant
No. 9128DC1068
(Filed 20 October 1992)
Divorce and Separation § 420 (NCI4th)— child support — paternity action and support order reversed — bond order also reversed
The trial court’s order requiring defendant to post a cash bond to secure enforcement of a child support order must be reversed where the Court of Appeals reversed the underlying paternity action and remanded for a new trial and, as a result thereof, also reversed the child support order.
Am Jur 2d, Bastards § 128.
Appeal by defendant from order entered 16 May 1992 by Judge Shirley Brown in BUNCOMBE County District Court. This action was consolidated with two other actions for appeal, No. 9128DC853 and No. 9128DC869, and heard in the Court of Appeals 16 September 1992.
Sutton & Edmonds, by John R. Sutton, for plaintiff-appellee.
Buncombe County Child Support Enforcement Agency, by Carol A. Saliba, for plaintiff-appellee Buncombe County IV-D Agency.
Hyler & Lopez, P.A., by George B. Hyler, Jr., and Robert J. Lopez, for defendant-appellant.

Opinion:
WYNN, Judge.
This case was consolidated for appeal with two prior actions: a paternity action in which the defendant was adjudicated to be the father of the subject minor child; and, a subsequent child support action in which the defendant was ordered to pay child support. The subject appeal is a challenge to the trial court's order requiring defendant to post a cash bond to secure enforcement of the child support judgment. We reversed the underlying paternity action, Lombroia v. Peek, and remanded that case to the District Court for a new trial. As a result of our holding in Lombroia v. Peek, we reversed the Child Support Order. It follows that we must also reverse the Security Bond Order and remand to the District Court for appropriate action.
Reversed and remanded.
Chief Judge HEDRICK and Judge LEWIS concur.