Person County Ex Rel. Lester v. Holloway

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Person County Ex Rel. Lester v. Holloway

329 S.E.2d 713, 74 N.C. App. 734, 1985 N.C. App. LEXIS 3570

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedMay 21, 1985

Docket849SC994

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 329 S.E.2d 713 (Person County Ex Rel. Lester v. Holloway) 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

Person County Ex Rel. Lester v. Holloway, 329 S.E.2d 713, 74 N.C. App. 734, 1985 N.C. App. LEXIS 3570 (N.C. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

*735 WHICHARD, Judge.

I.

The appeal is from an interlocutory order. In the exercise of our discretion we nevertheless consider it to expedite decision in the public interest.

II.

Pursuant to an affirmation of paternity signed by plaintiff mother and an acknowledgment of paternity signed by defendant, on 27 August 1980 the court entered an Order of Paternity having the force and effect of a judgment. G.S. 110-132(a). On the same day defendant executed a sworn voluntary support agreement consenting to pay $100 per month toward the support of his minor child. On 4 September 1980 the court entered an order, which had the force and effect of a court order of support, approving this agreement. G.S. 110-133.

For failure to make payments when due, on 31 January 1984 defendant was ordered to appear and show cause why he should not be held in contempt. In response defendant moved for a blood grouping test, which motion the court granted on 17 July 1984. Defendant thus attempts to attack a paternity judgment in the course of a subsequent proceeding related solely to support. This he may not do. G.S. 110-132(b).

In Beaufort County v. Hopkins, 62 N.C. App. 321, 323, 302 S.E. 2d 662, 663 (1983) this Court stated,

[A] voluntary support agreement may, upon motion and a showing of changed circumstances, be modified or vacated at any time. [Citations omitted.] It cannot, however, be modified or vacated on the basis of relitigation, in a proceeding related solely to the order for support, of the paternity issue. That issue is res judicata and ‘shall not be reconsidered by the court’ in such a proceeding.

See also Durham County v. Riggsbee, 56 N.C. App. 744, 289 S.E. 2d 579 (1982).

The order is thus vacated and the cause remanded for further proceedings on the order to appear and show cause for failure to comply with the support order.

*736 Vacated and remanded.

Chief Judge Hedrick and Judge Webb concur.

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

*735 WHICHARD, Judge.

I.

The appeal is from an interlocutory order. In the exercise of our discretion we nevertheless consider it to expedite decision in the public interest.

II.

Pursuant to an affirmation of paternity signed by plaintiff mother and an acknowledgment of paternity signed by defendant, on 27 August 1980 the court entered an Order of Paternity having the force and effect of a judgment. G.S. 110-132(a). On the same day defendant executed a sworn voluntary support agreement consenting to pay $100 per month toward the support of his minor child. On 4 September 1980 the court entered an order, which had the force and effect of a court order of support, approving this agreement. G.S. 110-133.

For failure to make payments when due, on 31 January 1984 defendant was ordered to appear and show cause why he should not be held in contempt. In response defendant moved for a blood grouping test, which motion the court granted on 17 July 1984. Defendant thus attempts to attack a paternity judgment in the course of a subsequent proceeding related solely to support. This he may not do. G.S. 110-132(b).

In Beaufort County v. Hopkins, 62 N.C. App. 321, 323, 302 S.E. 2d 662, 663 (1983) this Court stated,

[A] voluntary support agreement may, upon motion and a showing of changed circumstances, be modified or vacated at any time. [Citations omitted.] It cannot, however, be modified or vacated on the basis of relitigation, in a proceeding related solely to the order for support, of the paternity issue. That issue is res judicata and ‘shall not be reconsidered by the court’ in such a proceeding.

See also Durham County v. Riggsbee, 56 N.C. App. 744, 289 S.E. 2d 579 (1982).

The order is thus vacated and the cause remanded for further proceedings on the order to appear and show cause for failure to comply with the support order.

*736 Vacated and remanded.

Chief Judge Hedrick and Judge Webb concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

329 S.E.2d 713, 74 N.C. App. 734, 1985 N.C. App. LEXIS 3570, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/person-county-ex-rel-lester-v-holloway-ncctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack