Gorrell v. Gorrell

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Gorrell v. Gorrell

141 S.E.2d 794, 264 N.C. 403, 1965 N.C. LEXIS 1204

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedMay 5, 1965

Docket699

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 141 S.E.2d 794 (Gorrell v. Gorrell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gorrell v. Gorrell, 141 S.E.2d 794, 264 N.C. 403, 1965 N.C. LEXIS 1204 (N.C. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER Cueiam.

The order attaching defendant for contempt is fatally defective in that it is not supported by a finding of fact that defendant’s failure to make the required payments was wilful. “Our decisions uniformly hold that in contempt proceedings it is necessary for the court to find the facts supporting the judgment and especially the facts as to the purpose and object of the contemner, since nothing short of ‘willful disobedience’ will justify punishment.” Smith v. Smith, 247 N.C. 223, *404 225, 100 S.E. 2d 370, 372; accord, Smith v. Smith, 248 N.C. 298, 103 S.E. 2d 400; Yow v. Yow, 243 N.C. 79, 89 S.E. 2d 867.

Before the court may determine whether a husband’s failure to pay is a wilful disobedience of its orders, i.e., done “knowingly and of stubborn purpose,” Lamm v. Lamm, 229 N.C. 248, 250, 49 S.E. 2d 403, 404, the judge must “find what are his assets and liabilities and his ability to pay and work — an inventory of his financial condition,” Vaughan v. Vaughan, 213 N.C. 189, 193, 195 S.E. 351, 353.

The order of arrest must be struck. The cause is remanded for further proceedings.

Error and remanded.

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

PER Cueiam.

The order attaching defendant for contempt is fatally defective in that it is not supported by a finding of fact that defendant’s failure to make the required payments was wilful. “Our decisions uniformly hold that in contempt proceedings it is necessary for the court to find the facts supporting the judgment and especially the facts as to the purpose and object of the contemner, since nothing short of ‘willful disobedience’ will justify punishment.” Smith v. Smith, 247 N.C. 223, *404 225, 100 S.E. 2d 370, 372; accord, Smith v. Smith, 248 N.C. 298, 103 S.E. 2d 400; Yow v. Yow, 243 N.C. 79, 89 S.E. 2d 867.

Before the court may determine whether a husband’s failure to pay is a wilful disobedience of its orders, i.e., done “knowingly and of stubborn purpose,” Lamm v. Lamm, 229 N.C. 248, 250, 49 S.E. 2d 403, 404, the judge must “find what are his assets and liabilities and his ability to pay and work — an inventory of his financial condition,” Vaughan v. Vaughan, 213 N.C. 189, 193, 195 S.E. 351, 353.

The order of arrest must be struck. The cause is remanded for further proceedings.

Error and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 S.E.2d 794, 264 N.C. 403, 1965 N.C. LEXIS 1204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gorrell-v-gorrell-nc-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack