Sturgill v. Sturgill
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
CLARK, Judge.
Since the defendant expressed acquiescence in the trial court’s order with regard to the provision for garnishment for child support under G.S. 110-136, we need deal herein only with that portion of the order of 19 December 1979 which assigns the wages of defendant to the plaintiff in payment for his alimony obligation. The assignment of wages must be considered in two parts. First, we must consider whether the trial court’s assignment of the $2,438.42 on deposit with the clerk was error. Second, we must consider whether the court’s assignment of defendant’s future wages is error.
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Hudson v. HudsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
- Elmwood v. ElmwoodSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1978
- State v. BradySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
- Motor Finance Co. v. PutnamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1948
- Phillips v. PhillipsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1977
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Pachas by Pachas v. N.C. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2018
- In re ConnellyUnited States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. North Carolina · 2002
- Kinsinger v. Smartcore, LLCDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina · 2021
- Pachas v. N.C. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 2019
- Pachas v. N.C. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 2019
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.