262 N.C. App. 383
N.C. Ct. App.2018Background
- Defendant Danita Manning was ordered (temporary then permanent, Oct. 2014) to pay monthly child support and arrears; the permanent order remained "in full force and effect."
- Defendant made no child support payments after the permanent order; arrears accrued to roughly $3,740–$3,927 by mid‑2016.
- The Cumberland County Child Support Enforcement Agency filed an Order to Appear and Show Cause (Apr. 6, 2016) alleging contempt for nonpayment; Defendant was served and the hearing was set.
- Show‑cause hearing held July 20, 2016: Defendant attended, requested continuance/set‑aside but presented no evidence; court found her in willful contempt.
- Trial court set incarceration and a purge schedule (initially $2,500, later reduced in stages to $500) and ordered monthly payments; defendant appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the underlying child support order remained in force for contempt purposes | County: arrears survive termination of periodic obligation; the order’s purpose (collecting arrears) can be served by compliance | Manning: order no longer in force after child turned 18, so contempt cannot enforce it | Held: order remained in force as to arrears under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50‑13.4(c); contempt could be based on arrears |
| Whether trial court had competent evidence to find present ability to pay (and thus willfulness) | County: burden was on Manning (show‑cause order shifted burden); she presented no evidence of inability | Manning: court lacked competent evidence of present ability to pay at hearing; affidavit was stale | Held: although burden shifted, the court must still have competent evidence; the record lacked evidence of present ability to pay at time of hearing |
| Whether the trial court’s findings/support for purge conditions were adequate and not vague | County: purge amount and schedule were set and later reduced by court | Manning: purge conditions and finding of ability to purge were unsupported by competent evidence | Held: purge conditions must be capable of being met and supported by evidence; here finding about ability to pay/purge not supported — vacated and remanded |
| Scope of appellate review of contempt findings | County: findings of fact are binding if supported by any competent evidence | Manning: challenges sufficiency of evidentiary support for key findings | Held: affirmed that findings are reviewed for competent evidence; affirmed remainder (order in force) but vacated contempt order portions tied to unsupported ability/willfulness findings and remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Watson v. Watson, 187 N.C. App. 55 (2007) (standard for civil contempt and requirement that findings be supported by competent evidence)
- Moss v. Moss, 222 N.C. App. 75 (2012) (burden shift when court issues show‑cause order; procedural rules for contempt)
- Clark v. Gragg, 171 N.C. App. 120 (2005) (trial court must find willfulness and present ability to pay before civil contempt)
- Hartsell v. Hartsell, 99 N.C. App. 380 (1990) (general finding of present ability to comply can suffice if supported by evidence)
- Plott v. Plott, 74 N.C. App. 82 (1985) (civil contempt in child support context requires means to comply and wilful refusal)
- Maxwell v. Maxwell, 212 N.C. App. 614 (2011) (appellate treatment of findings of present ability to comply and evidentiary sufficiency)