Fliehr v. Fliehr

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Fliehr v. Fliehr

289 S.E.2d 105, 56 N.C. App. 465, 1982 N.C. App. LEXIS 2419

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedMarch 16, 1982

Docket8126DC570

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 289 S.E.2d 105 (Fliehr v. Fliehr) 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

Fliehr v. Fliehr, 289 S.E.2d 105, 56 N.C. App. 465, 1982 N.C. App. LEXIS 2419 (N.C. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

*466 ARNOLD, Judge.

We hold that this appeal must be dismissed as interlocutory according to this Court’s holding in Stephenson v. Stephenson, 55 N.C. App. 250, 285 S.E. 2d 281 (1981).

In this case, unlike that in Stephenson, the child support order is not designated pendente lite by the court. However, we conclude that the policy articulated in Stephenson will be largely defeated if we permit appeals of right from child support orders entered in conjunction with orders for alimony pendente lite. As we stated in Stephenson, the backlog of appeals awaiting review by this Court is now so great that usually the only feasible purpose for pursuing appeals from temporary support orders is to delay execution of the orders. It is our intent to eliminate use of this Court to achieve this unacceptable purpose. We conclude, therefore, that orders for child support which are entered in conjunction with orders awarding alimony pendente lite are not ap-pealable until entry of a final order on the plaintiffs claim for permanent alimony. To hold otherwise, moreover, would allow appeal from an order which adjudicates fewer than all claims in violation of G.S. 1A-1, Rule 54(b). The order therefore is not subject to review by appeal and is

Dismissed.

Judges Clark and Whichard concur.

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

*466 ARNOLD, Judge.

We hold that this appeal must be dismissed as interlocutory according to this Court’s holding in Stephenson v. Stephenson, 55 N.C. App. 250, 285 S.E. 2d 281 (1981).

In this case, unlike that in Stephenson, the child support order is not designated pendente lite by the court. However, we conclude that the policy articulated in Stephenson will be largely defeated if we permit appeals of right from child support orders entered in conjunction with orders for alimony pendente lite. As we stated in Stephenson, the backlog of appeals awaiting review by this Court is now so great that usually the only feasible purpose for pursuing appeals from temporary support orders is to delay execution of the orders. It is our intent to eliminate use of this Court to achieve this unacceptable purpose. We conclude, therefore, that orders for child support which are entered in conjunction with orders awarding alimony pendente lite are not ap-pealable until entry of a final order on the plaintiffs claim for permanent alimony. To hold otherwise, moreover, would allow appeal from an order which adjudicates fewer than all claims in violation of G.S. 1A-1, Rule 54(b). The order therefore is not subject to review by appeal and is

Dismissed.

Judges Clark and Whichard concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 S.E.2d 105, 56 N.C. App. 465, 1982 N.C. App. LEXIS 2419, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fliehr-v-fliehr-ncctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack