Ingle v. Ingle

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Ingle v. Ingle

197 S.E.2d 61, 18 N.C. App. 455, 1973 N.C. App. LEXIS 1900

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedJune 13, 1973

Docket7319DC443

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 197 S.E.2d 61 (Ingle v. Ingle) 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

Ingle v. Ingle, 197 S.E.2d 61, 18 N.C. App. 455, 1973 N.C. App. LEXIS 1900 (N.C. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

BRITT, Judge.

The first question for our consideration is whether respondent was given sufficient notice of the purpose of the 28 September 1972 hearing. We hold that he was not. Prior to the hearing, respondent was served only with a subpoena which *457 ordered him to appear “to testify in the above entitled action.” At the hearing, the court made an informal inquiry as to why respondent had failed to make support payments in compliance with a prior court order and then, in effect, adjudged him in contempt.

Failure to comply with a prior court order would amount to an act committed outside the presence of the court, at a distance from it, which tends to degrade the court or interrupts, prevents or impedes the administration of justice and would be classified an indirect contempt. In re Edison, 15 N.C. App. 354, 190 S.E. 2d 235 (1972). When the contempt is indirect, the procedure prescribed by G.S. 5-7 providing that an order issue directing an offender to appear within a reasonable time and show cause why he should not be attached for contempt must be followed. In the instant case respondent received no such notice.

Respondent next assigns as error the court’s failure to make findings of fact as to his present ability to comply with the previous court order and his ability to pay during the period of the alleged default. This assignment also has merit. An order, entered pursuant to a contempt hearing, which confines a person to jail until he complies with a support order must find not only that his failure to comply with the support order was willful but also that he presently possesses the means to comply with the order. Mauney v. Mauney, 268 N.C. 254, 150 S.E. 2d 391 (1966); Upton v. Upton, 14 N.C. App. 107, 187 S.E. 2d 387 (1972); Cox v. Cox, 10 N.C. App. 476, 179 S.E. 2d 194 (1971). In the case at bar the court made no such findings of fact.

For the reasons stated, the order appealed from is vacated and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Remanded.

Judges Morris and Parker concur.

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

BRITT, Judge.

The first question for our consideration is whether respondent was given sufficient notice of the purpose of the 28 September 1972 hearing. We hold that he was not. Prior to the hearing, respondent was served only with a subpoena which *457 ordered him to appear “to testify in the above entitled action.” At the hearing, the court made an informal inquiry as to why respondent had failed to make support payments in compliance with a prior court order and then, in effect, adjudged him in contempt.

Failure to comply with a prior court order would amount to an act committed outside the presence of the court, at a distance from it, which tends to degrade the court or interrupts, prevents or impedes the administration of justice and would be classified an indirect contempt. In re Edison, 15 N.C. App. 354, 190 S.E. 2d 235 (1972). When the contempt is indirect, the procedure prescribed by G.S. 5-7 providing that an order issue directing an offender to appear within a reasonable time and show cause why he should not be attached for contempt must be followed. In the instant case respondent received no such notice.

Respondent next assigns as error the court’s failure to make findings of fact as to his present ability to comply with the previous court order and his ability to pay during the period of the alleged default. This assignment also has merit. An order, entered pursuant to a contempt hearing, which confines a person to jail until he complies with a support order must find not only that his failure to comply with the support order was willful but also that he presently possesses the means to comply with the order. Mauney v. Mauney, 268 N.C. 254, 150 S.E. 2d 391 (1966); Upton v. Upton, 14 N.C. App. 107, 187 S.E. 2d 387 (1972); Cox v. Cox, 10 N.C. App. 476, 179 S.E. 2d 194 (1971). In the case at bar the court made no such findings of fact.

For the reasons stated, the order appealed from is vacated and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Remanded.

Judges Morris and Parker concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 S.E.2d 61, 18 N.C. App. 455, 1973 N.C. App. LEXIS 1900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ingle-v-ingle-ncctapp-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack