Court Opinion

ID: 9851923
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:21:41.000256+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:19.510705
License: Public Domain

Judge Brock
concurring.
I concur in the holding of the majority opinion that the judgment of indefinite confinement in this case is not supported by a finding that the husband presently possesses the means to comply. Obviously the husband’s financial condition will not be enhanced by confining him to jail; and, absent a present capa*479bility to comply, the indefinite confinement order is self-defeating. I am aware that there are instances where the “clanging of the jail door” will suddenly sharpen the memory of a recalcitrant husband so that he will pursue a financial resource that had “slipped his mind.” Nevertheless, absent evidence and a finding of present capability to comply, an order indefinitely imprisoning a husband cannot be allowed to stand; our system must not operate on assumed clairvoyance of either the trial or appellate bench.
The purpose of this concurring opinion is to point out that the holding of the majority in this case, and earlier opinions by our Supreme Court, is not to be construed as tying the hands of the trial courts in the enforcement of its support orders.
Committing a husband to jail for an indefinite term, i.e., until he complies with an order for support, is authorized when there is a present and continuing contempt. A present and continuing contempt exists when the husband presently possesses the means to comply, and wilfully fails or refuses to comply. A finding to this effect by the trial judge is necessary to support confinement for an indefinite term.
In situations where the evidence merely establishes that a husband was able to pay at the time a payment was required by an order, and that he then wilfully failed or refused to make the payment, the contempt is a past contempt, i.e., an act already accomplished. The statutes and the cases are unclear as to limitation on punishment in proceedings as for contempt under G.S. 5-8. The decision in Basnight v. Basnight, 242 N.C. 645, 89 S.E. 2d 259, seems to say that confinement for failure to pay alimony and support is limited by G.S. 5-4 to thirty days. However, the Court in Smith v. Smith, 248 N.C. 298, 103 S.E. 2d 400, holding that confinement is not limited by G.S. 5-4, explains that the proceedings in Basnight were instituted under G.S. 5-1(4) and consequently the confinement was limited by statute. Smith reaffirmed Dyer v. Dyer, 218 N.C. 634, 197 S.E. 157, in holding that a present and continuing contempt may be punished by indefinite confinement, but the concurring opinion by Bobbitt, J. (now Chief Justice), joined in by Johnson, J., would limit confinement to thirty days under G.S. 5-4 for a past contempt. Also the last paragraph of the opinion in Mauney v. Mauney, 268 N.C. 254, 150 S.E. 2d 391, strongly indicates *480that a judgment as for civil contempt must contain a finding of present capability. The cases seem to hold that a finding of a past contempt would be a finding of criminal contempt, for which punishment is limited by G.S. 5-4.
However, since the above cases were decided the legislature has extensively rewritten Chapter 50 of the General Statutes and specifically has made provisions' for enforcement of orders for alimony, support and custody. G.S. 50-16.7(j) provides: “The wilful disobedience of an order for the payment of alimony or alimony pendente lite shall be punishable as for contempt as provided by G.S. 5-8 and G.S. 5-9.” In a like manner G.S. 50-13.4(f) (9) provides: “The wilful disobedience of an order for the payment of child support shall be punishable as for contempt as provided by G.S. 5-8 and G.S. 5-9.” Punishment for wilful disobedience of an order providing for custody of a minor child is likewise “punishable as for contempt.” G.S. 50-13.3(a).
The legislature has clearly provided that punishment for wilful violation of orders for alimony, support and custody shall be as for contempt as provided by G.S. 5-8 and G.S. 5-9. These new statutes dearly eliminate the use of G.S. 5-1 in alimony, support, and custody cases, therefore the thirty day limitation on punishment as provided in G.S. 5-4 has no application to such proceedings, whether the contempt is present and continuing, or whether it is a past contempt. Nevertheless, indefinite confinement for failure to pay alimony or support is not authorized unless there is the finding of present capability to comply.