Oldham v. . Oldham

35 S.E.2d 332, 225 N.C. 476, 1945 N.C. LEXIS 340

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: October 10, 1945
• Status: Published

Opinion

Denny, J.

Defendant’s sole exception is to the refusal of his Honor to dismiss the action and to the signing of the order allowing temporary subsistence and counsel fees to the plaintiff.

Gr. S., 50-16, provides for two separate remedies, one for alimony without divorce, and second, for reasonable subsistence and counsel fees pendente lite. McFetters v. McFetters, 219 N. C., 731, 14 S. E. (2d), 833. The amounts allowed to a plaintiff for subsistence pendente lite and for counsel fees are determined by the trial judge in his discretion, and are not reviewable; either party, however, may apply for a modification of the order at any time before the trial of the action. Tiedemann v. Tiedemann, 204 N. C., 682, 169 S. E., 422. We know of no defense that limits the power of a trial court to award subsistence pendente lite, under G. S., 50-16, except the defense specified in the statute. Expressum facit cessare tactitum. Shore v. Shore, 220 N. C., 802, 18 S. E. (2d), 353; Allen v. Allen, 180 N. C., 465, 105 S. E., 11. The defense specified in the statute is: “That in all applications for alimony under this section it shall be competent for the husband to plead the adultery of the wife in bar of her right to such alimony, and if the wife shall deny such plea, and the issue be found against her by the judge, he shall make no order allowing her any sum whatever as alimony, or for her support, but only her reasonable counsel fees.” Therefore, in an action for alimony without divorce the validity or reasonableness of a separation agreement need not be determined before tbe court can award temporary allowances. Tbe statute expressly provides tbat sucb allowances may be made “pending tbe trial and final determination of tbe issues involved in sucb action.” Taylor v. Taylor, 197 N. C., 197, 148 S. E., 171. See also Barbee v. Barbee, 187 N. C., 538, 122 S. E., 177, and Peele v. Peele, 216 N. C., 298, 4 S. E. (2d), 616. In tbe last cited case, Seawell, J., in speaking for tbe Court, said: “To summarize, tbe allowances pendente Hie form no part of tbe ultimate relief sought, do not affect tbe final rights of tbe parties, and tbe power of tbe judge to make them is constitutionally exercised without tbe intervention of tbe jury.”

Tbe judgment of tbe court below is

Affirmed.