Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

81 N.C. App. 675

344 S.E.2d 806

Dunlap v. Dunlap

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · decided 1986-07-01

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“a temporary child custody order is interlocutory and does not affect any substantial right ... which cannot be protected by timely appeal from the trial court's ultimate disposition ... on the merits.”

quoted by 4 later decisions, including 139 N.C. App. 222 - Brewer v. Brewer, 151 N.C. App. 622 - McConnell v. McConnell

“An interlocutory order is one that does not determine the issues, but directs some further proceeding preliminary to a final decree.”

quoted by 4 later decisions, including 139 N.C. App. 222 - Brewer v. Brewer, 195 N.C. App. 244 - Smith v. Barbour

Relies on 73 N.C. App. 331 - Heavner v. Heavner · 49 N.C. App. 446 - Dworsky v. Travelers Insurance · Ingle v. Allen

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1986-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently August 2013 · most notably Sharpe v. Worland (1999), 139 N.C. App. 222 - Brewer v. Brewer (2000)

45 state decisions

1701986199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

ARNOLD, Judge.

¶1 The orders from which defendant appeals are interlocutory. An interlocutory order is one that does not determine the issues, but directs some further proceeding preliminary to a final decree. Smart v. Smart, 59 N.C. App. 533, 297 S.E. 2d 135 (1982). No appeal lies from an interlocutory order unless the order deprives the appellant of a substantial right which he would lose if the order is not reviewed before the final judgment. Heavner v. Heavner, 73 N.C. App. 331, 326 S.E. 2d 78, disc. rev. denied, 313 N.C. 601, 330 S.E. 2d 610 (1985).

¶2 The trial court’s order as to child custody does not finally determine the issue involved, but only provides for temporary custody until an August hearing date for further proceedings preliminary to a final decree. We hold that the order is interlocutory and the temporary custody granted by the order does not affect any substantial right of plaintiff which cannot be protected by timely appeal from the trial court’s ultimate disposition of the entire controversy on the merits. See Smart, 59 N.C. App. 533, 297 S.E. 2d 135. As to the order to produce the business records and other documents, it has been held that orders allowing discovery are not appealable since they are interlocutory and do not affect a substantial right which would be lost if the ruling were not reviewed before the final judgment. Dworsky v. Insurance Co., 49 *677 N.C. App. 446, 271 S.E. 2d 522 (1980). Plaintiffs appeal from these two orders by the trial court are therefore premature and must be dismissed.

¶3 Appeal dismissed.

Judges Wells and Becton concur.
/81/ncapp/675 · .json · Public domain