Cnty. of Durham, ex rel v. Orr

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. NO. COA 13-109 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 20 August 2013 COUNTY OF DURHAM, by and through, DURHAM DSS, ex rel: AUGUST M. CLARK WOOD, Plaintiff, v. Durham County No. 92 CVD 5241 EDGAR ARTHUR ORR, JR., Defendant. Appeal by defendant from order entered 4 September 2012 by Judge Doretta L. Walker in Durham County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 4 June 2013. No brief was submitted for plaintiff-appellee. Mary McCullers Reece for defendant-appellant. HUNTER, JR., Robert N., Judge. Edgar Arthur Orr, Jr. ( Defendant ) appeals from an order holding him in contempt for failure to pay child support. On appeal, Defendant argues the trial court erred in holding him in contempt because he lacks the present ability to comply with the child support order. Upon review, we reverse. - 2 I. Facts & Procedural History Defendant has two children: Anna and Barbara.1 At the time of the instant contempt hearing, Anna was thirteen and Barbara was twenty-one. voluntary child Agreement ) Court. On 8 December 1992, Defendant entered into a support with agreement Barbara s mother in (the Child Support Durham County District Under the terms of the Child Support Agreement, starting 1 January 1993 Defendant would pay Barbara s mother $125.00 each month until Barbara turned eighteen. his child support obligations. Defendant failed to meet However, he has tried to pay $10.00 per month toward child support. As of 2 July 2012, his arrears totaled $13,872.33. Defendant currently lives with his fiancé and Anna. He has not worked for the past seven years due to ruptured discs in his back and a cyst on his spine. receiving ( SSI ). $430 per month Starting in 2011, Defendant began in supplemental security income He has no other income and spends his entire monthly SSI payments on rent. receives food stamps. Defendant s fiancé has no income and She uses her food stamps to purchase food for Defendant and Anna. In March 2011, Defendant received a lump SSI back payment of approximately $2,900. Defendant used the $2,900 to personal debts. 1 Anna and Barbara are pseudonyms used to protect privacy. pay - 3 On 2 July 2012, Durham County filed a show cause motion against Defendant motion, it in alleged Durham County Defendant support to Barbara s mother. District willfully Court. failed to In pay the child That same day, the district court issued an order for Defendant to show cause as to why he was not in contempt for violating the Child Support Agreement. On 4 September 2012, Defendant attended a contempt hearing in Durham testimony, County the District district Court. court ability to pay child support. Based determined on he had Defendant s the present The district court reasoned that Defendant got a big old check and he couldn t give the baby $10 then. It further explained that Defendant has an ability to pay because he receives a paycheck that s enough to house three people, but yet when he get s [sic] some money, he doesn t pay anything towards result, the the money he district court owes for this child. 2 held Defendant in contempt As a for failing to abide by the Child Support Agreement. In its 4 September 2012 contempt order, the district court ordered Defendant imprisoned for 90 days, but suspended the term based on several conditions. Specifically, the district court required Defendant to: (i) pay $30.00 per month in child support for the next three months; (ii) pay $70.00 per month for the 2 Barbara is the baby and child referenced by the district court. At the time of the hearing, Barbara was twenty-one years old. - 4 four months following that; and then (iii) pay $125.00 per month until all arrears are satisfied. Defendant immediately paid $10.75 following the toward contempt his child hearing. support arrears Defendant filed timely notice of appeal on 26 September 2012. II. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review This Court has jurisdiction to hear the instant case pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27(c) (2011). In contempt proceedings, the standard of review is limited to determining whether there is competent evidence to support the findings of fact and whether the findings support the conclusions of law. Findings of fact made by the judge in contempt proceedings are conclusive on appeal when supported by any competent evidence and are reviewable only for the purpose of passing upon their sufficiency to warrant the judgment. Watson v. Watson, 187 N.C. App. 55, 64, 652 S.E.2d 310, 317 (2007) (quotation marks and citations omitted). Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo and are subject to full review. State v. Biber, 365 N.C. 162, 168, 712 S.E.2d 874, 878 (2011); see also Carolina Power & Light Co. v. City of Asheville, 358 N.C. 512, 517, 597 S.E.2d 717, 721 (2004) ( Conclusions of law drawn by the trial court from its findings of fact are reviewable de novo on appeal. ). review, the court considers the matter Under a anew and de novo freely substitutes its own judgment for that of the lower tribunal. - 5 State v. Williams, 362 N.C. 628, 632-33, 669 S.E.2d 290, 294 (2008) (quoting In re Greens of Pine Glen Ltd., 356 N.C. 642, 647, 576 S.E.2d 316, 319 (2003)). III. Analysis On appeal, Defendant argues the trial court erred by holding him in contempt when he lacks the present ability to pay child support. In North We agree. Carolina, courts may hold parties in civil contempt if: (i) an order remains in force; (ii) the order s purpose may still be served through the party s compliance; (iii) the party s non-compliance with the order is willful; and (iv) the party has the present ability to comply with the order. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 5A-21 (2011). As to the last requirement, this Court has clarified that: [c]ivil contempt is designed to coerce compliance with a court order, and a party s ability to satisfy that order is essential. Because civil contempt is based on a willful violation of a lawful court order, a person does not act willfully if compliance is out of his or her power. Willfulness constitutes: (1) an ability to comply with the court order; and (2) a deliberate and intentional failure to do so. Ability to comply has been interpreted as not only the present means to comply, but also the ability to take reasonable measures to comply. A general finding of present ability to comply is sufficient when there is evidence in the record regarding defendant s assets. - 6 Watson, 187 N.C. App. at 66, 652 S.E.2d at 318 (quotation marks and citations omitted). When analyzing parties present ability to make payments, trial courts must examine the parties assets and liabilities and [their] ability to pay and work. Vaughan v. Vaughan, 213 N.C. 189, 193, 195 S.E. 351, 353 (1938). For instance, trial courts may look at income, housing expenses, and outstanding debts. Graham v. Graham, 77 N.C. App. 422, 424-25, 335 S.E.2d 210, 212 (1985). Trial courts should also consider expenses incurred from raising minor children. 635, 640, 133 S.E.2d 487, 492 Fuchs v. Fuchs, 260 N.C. (1963). Additionally, trial courts may examine whether the party could have taken reasonable measures to comply with the order, such as seeking employment or liquidating existing assets. Watson, 187 N.C. App. at 66, 652 S.E.2d at 318. The framework obligations gives for us initially calculating non-binding guidance child in parties present ability to pay child support. trial courts calculate child support, 13.4(c1) requires them to give due support determining First, when N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50regard to the estates, earnings, conditions, accustomed standard of living of the child and the parties, the child care and homemaker contributions of each party, and other facts of the particular case. Stat. § 50-13.4(c1) (2011). N.C. Gen. Furthermore, the North Carolina - 7 Child Support Guidelines explicitly address SSI payments: Specifically excluded from income are benefits received from means-tested public limited . to Conference Support of . assistance . programs, Supplemental Chief District Guidelines 3 including Security Judges, Income North (2011), but (SSI). Carolina available http://www.nccourts.org/forms/documents/1226.pdf. not Child at Because trial courts do not consider SSI payments for initial child support calculations, we decline to consider SSI payments in related contempt proceedings. In the present case, Defendant argues the trial court erred by holding him in contempt when he lacks the present ability to pay. We agree. In its factual findings, Defendant is unemployed. the district court noted that See In re J.M.W., 179 N.C. App. 788, 792, 635 S.E.2d 916, 919 (2006) ( If unchallenged on appeal, findings of fact are deemed supported by competent evidence and are binding omitted)). upon this Court. (quotation marks and citation The only current income the district court listed in its factual findings was Defendant s $430 monthly SSI payment. See id. Later, in its factual finding about Defendant s present ability to pay, the district court summarily stated, Defendant is contributing to current household expenses and received [a] SSI lump sum. - 8 Based on these factual findings, the district court concluded as a matter of law that Defendant should be held in civil contempt because he has the present ability to comply with the order or to take reasonable measures to comply with the Order. At the hearing, the district court judge explained her rationale: [H]e tells me he got a big old check and he couldn t give the baby $10.00 then. . . . [H]e has an ability to pay because he receives a paycheck that s enough to house three people, but yet when he get s [sic] some money, he doesn t pay anything towards the money he owes for this child. Upon de novo review, we determine the district court erred in its legal conclusion that Defendant had the present ability to pay. First, the district court did not appropriately consider Defendant s existing assets or income. See Vaughan, 213 N.C. at 193, 195 S.E. at 353; Graham, 77 N.C. App. at 42425, 335 received S.E.2d a at $2,900 212. lump For SSI back instance, payment although Defendant in 2011, March testified he spent the entire sum on pre-existing debts. he The district court did not list any other assets to support its contempt determination. Additionally, the only income the district court listed was Defendant s $430 monthly SSI payment. However, when trial courts exclude SSI payments from initial child support calculations, we believe the district court erred - 9 by holding Defendant in contempt when his current income consists entirely of monthly SSI payments. Furthermore, the trial court did not appropriately consider Defendant s expenses, including rent and the costs of raising his minor daughter Anna. See Fuchs, 260 N.C. at 640, 133 S.E.2d at the 492. Specifically, district court acknowledged that Defendant uses his entire monthly SSI payment to contribut[e] to current household expenses, but still held him in contempt. When a defendant uses his entire monthly SSI payments on apartment rent for himself and his minor daughter, we hold that he is in fact contributing to the costs of raising the child and he lacks the present ability to pay as required by law. Lastly, since the district court did not find Defendant has any other assets or the ability to seek employment, he could not have taken reasonable measures to comply with the Child Support Agreement. See Watson, 187 N.C. App. at 66, 652 S.E.2d at 318; Vaughan, 213 N.C. at 193, 195 S.E. at 353. Consequently, we conclude the trial court erred by holding Defendant in contempt because he lacks the present ability to comply with the Child Support Agreement. IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the district court s contempt order is REVERSED. - 10 - Chief Judge MARTIN and Report per Rule 30(e). Judge ELMORE concur.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.