NC General Statutes
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50-3 (2026)
Venue; removal of action
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NCLEGncleg.gov (official)
JustiaChapter 50
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
In all proceedings for divorce, the summons shall be returnable to the court of the county in which either the plaintiff or defendant resides.
[In] any action brought under Chapter 50 for alimony or divorce filed in a county where the plaintiff resides but the defendant does not reside, where both parties are residents of the State of North Carolina, and where the plaintiff removes from the State and ceases to be a resident, the action may be removed upon motion of the defendant, for trial or for any motion in the cause, either before or after judgment, to the county in which the defendant resides. The judge, upon such motion, shall order the removal of the action, and the procedures of G.S. 1-87 shall be followed. (1871-2, c. 193, s. 40; Code, s. 1289; Rev., s. 1559; 1915, c. 229, s. 1; C.S., s. 1657; 1977, 2nd Sess., c. 1223.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases, 1946–2018 · leading case: Gardner v. Gardner, 268 S.E.2d 468 (N.C. 1980).
Gardner v. Gardner, 268 S.E.2d 468 (N.C. 1980). “1-83(2), defendant filed yet another motion for change of venue, this time pursuant to G.S. 50-3. That statute had been amended in June 1978 to provide: “Any action brought under Chapter 50 for alimony or divorce filed in a county where the plaintiff resides but the defendant…”
Dechkovskaia v. Dechkovskaia, 780 S.E.2d 175 (N.C. Ct. App. 2015). “§ 50-3, seeking to move the equitable distribution hearing on remand and plaintiff's motions for contempt for non-payment of alimony and attorneys' fees from Orange County District Court to Durham County District Court.”
Miller v. Miller, 247 S.E.2d 278 (N.C. Ct. App. 1978). “N.C.G.S. §§ 50-3, 1-82. Here, the action was filed in Forsyth County, but both husband and wife were residents of Guilford County.”
State v. Mills, 754 S.E.2d 674 (N.C. Ct. App. 2014). “2d 390, 391 (1982) (noting that, while the district court has subject matter jurisdiction over divorce actions, “G.S. § 50-3, which states that summons for divorce proceedings shall be returnable to the court of the county in which either plaintiff or defendant resides, and G.”
Scheinert v. Scheinert, 818 S.E.2d 114 (N.C. Ct. App. 2018). “*234 Plaintiff Jeanne Southall Scheinert appeals from an order transferring this alimony proceeding from Randolph County to Caswell County under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50-3 . As explained below, the trial court's order does not contain sufficient findings to support transfer under…”
Nelms v. Nelms, 108 S.E.2d 529 (N.C. 1959). “6; (3) that in all proceedings for divorce the summons shall be returnable to the court of the county in which either the plaintiff or defendant resides, G.S. § 50-3 Venue; and (4) that if the county designated for the purpose of summons and complaint is not the proper one, the…”
Gardner v. Gardner, 260 S.E.2d 116 (N.C. Ct. App. 1979). “Furthermore, it is clear that the amendment to G.S. 50-3 is retroactive. “[Statutes or amendments pertaining to procedure are generally held to operate retrospectively, where the statute or amendment does not contain language clearly showing a contrary intention.”
Gardner v. Gardner, 269 S.E.2d 630 (N.C. Ct. App. 1980). “In that case, the Supreme Court held that even though statutes or amendments pertaining to procedure are generally to be applied retrospectively, the amendment to G.S. 50-3 could not be applied in that case to defeat the wife’s right to venue in Wayne County established by…”
Denson v. Denson, 122 S.E.2d 507 (N.C. 1961). “, said: “The provision of the statute, G.S. 50-3, that in all proceedings for divorce the summons shall be returnable to the court of the county in which either the plaintiff or defendant resides, is not jurisdictional, but relates to venue, and may be waived.”
Smith v. Smith, 290 S.E.2d 390 (N.C. Ct. App. 1982). “G.S. § 50-3, which states that summons for divorce proceedings shall be returnable to the court of the county in which either plaintiff or defendant resides, and G.”
Smith v. Smith, 226 N.C. 506 (N.C. 1946). “The provision of the statute, G. S., 50-3, that in all proceedings for divorce the summons shall be returnable to the court of the county in which either the plaintiff or defendant resides, is not jurisdictional, but relates to venue, and may be waived.”
Batts v. United States, 120 F. Supp. 26 (E.D.N.C. 1954). “§ 50-3. Edward Batts resided in New Hanover County and Ethel Batts resided in Duplin County.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.