
    ANITA ORREN v. ROBERT A. ORREN
    No. 7427DC1066
    (Filed 5 March 1975)
    Divorce and Alimony § 18 — alimony pendente lite — no dependent spouse
    Trial court’s conclusion that plaintiff was not a dependent spouse and was thus not entitled to alimony pendente lite was supported by findings that plaintiff earns sufficient income to support and maintain herself in the manner to which she was accustomed prior to the separation, that she earns the same amount of money as defendant, and that she is not dependent upon defendant for her support and maintenance.
    Appeal by plaintiff from Kirby, Judge. Judgment entered 7 November 1974 in District Court, Gaston County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 21 February 1975.
    Plaintiff wife brought this action against defendant husband for alimony without divorce. From the order of the trial court denying her request for alimony pendente lite, plaintiff appealed to this Court.
    
      Basil L. Whitener and Anne M. Lamm for plaintiff appellant.
    
    
      No brief filed by defendant.
    
   ARNOLD, Judge.

Plaintiff contends that her testimony, the only evidence presented at the hearing, does not support the trial court’s findings of fact and that these findings do not support the court’s conclusion that she is not a dependent spouse.

In an action for alimony pendente lite the trial court is not required to find evidentiary or subsidiary facts. The court need only to find the ultimate facts in issue. Sprinkle v. Sprinkle, 17 N.C. App. 175, 193 S.E. 2d 468 (1972) ; Peoples v. Peoples, 10 N.C. App. 402, 179 S.E. 2d 138 (1971) ; Hatcher v. Hatcher, 7 N.C. App. 562, 173 S.E. 2d 33 (1970). A dependent spouse is defined in G.S. 50-16.1(3) as “a spouse, whether husband or wife, who is actually substantially dependent upon the other spouse for his or her maintenance and support or is substantially in need of maintenance and support from the other spouse.”

The court found in the case at bar that “the plaintiff., is employed at this time at Gaston Memorial Hospital and earns sufficient income to support and maintain herself in the manner that she was accustomed to living prior to the separation and earns approximately the same amount of money that the defendant earns. . . . [She] is not dependent upon the defendant for her support and maintenance . ” Plaintiff’s own testimony amply supports these findings of ultimate fact. They in turn support the conclusion that plaintiff is not a dependent spouse. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Judges Britt and Morris concur.  