Durham County v. Riggsbee

289 S.E.2d 579, 56 N.C. App. 744, 1982 N.C. App. LEXIS 2443
CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina
DecidedApril 6, 1982
Docket8114DC704
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 289 S.E.2d 579 (Durham County v. Riggsbee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Durham County v. Riggsbee, 289 S.E.2d 579, 56 N.C. App. 744, 1982 N.C. App. LEXIS 2443 (N.C. Ct. App. 1982).

Opinion

VAUGHN, Judge.

On 13 October 1976, defendant was ordered to pay plaintiff Capparella, defendant’s former wife, $40.00 each week for the support of a minor child which the court found to have been born to the marriage. The issue of paternity was raised and fully litigated in that proceeding. Defendant did not appeal and complied with the order through January 1978.

Plaintiff Capparella began receiving public assistance in the form of AFDC through the Durham County Department of Social Services and that resulted in the assignment of her right to obtain child support under the provisions of G.S. 110-137. In February 1981, plaintiff County filed a motion in the cause seeking wage garnishment pursuant to G.S. 110-136 to enforce the child support order.

*745 Defendant then filed a “Motion for Discovery and Stay of Proceedings.” The motion was filed under General Statute Rule 35(a). He alleged that he had learned of “a different and reportedly more reliable method for testing a child’s paternity. . . .”

On 23 April 1981, Judge Galloway entered an order requiring the mother, father and their child to submit themselves to a tissue typing test, and ordered that the garnishment proceeding be stayed pending the results of the tests.

The judge’s lack of authority to attempt to relitigate an issue that had been finally determined more than four years earlier is so obvious that no discussion of the question need be made.

The order is void, and the same is hereby vacated.

Vacated.

Chief Judge MORRIS and Judge HEDRICK concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Person County Ex Rel. Lester v. Holloway
329 S.E.2d 713 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1985)
Holt v. Shoffner
304 S.E.2d 787 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1983)
Leach v. Alford
304 S.E.2d 265 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
289 S.E.2d 579, 56 N.C. App. 744, 1982 N.C. App. LEXIS 2443, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/durham-county-v-riggsbee-ncctapp-1982.