Articles in the Family Law category - Page 6 of 14

Father files a complaint alleging mother breached terms of an agreement by not paying alimony and child support. Mother admits she has not paid but argues that she should not have to pay because dad consistently has failed to comply with the custody provisions of the agreement by refusing to allow her to see the children and has repeatedly violated a provision in the agreement that he would not harass her.

Can father enforce the contract against mother if mother proves he also breached the contract? Does his breach excuse mother’s performance?

The following post was written by Daniel Spiegel, a North Carolina Assistant Appellate Defender. It addresses the legality of a purge condition frequently imposed in civil contempt orders entered in child support enforcement proceedings across North Carolina.

This is a very important topic. Please share your thoughts and reactions.

READ POST "Civil Contempt and “Springing” Orders for Arrest (March 7, 2018)"

In an opinion issued yesterday, the NC Court of Appeals reaffirmed that while military disability pay cannot be distributed by a court in equitable distribution, it is income that can be considered when the trial court is looking for a source of payment for a distributive award. Lesh v. Lesh, NC App (Jan. 16, 2018). In reaching this decision, the court rejected the argument that this rule was changed by the recent decision by the US Supreme Court in Howell v. Howell, 137 S. Ct. 1400 (2017), wherein the Court reiterated that federal law prohibits the distribution of  military disability in equitable distribution.

Lesh and Howell present a good opportunity to review the law regarding military disability pay in domestic relations cases.

READ POST "Military Disability Pay: It’s not marital property but it is income (January 17, 2018)"

In the recent case of Green v. Green, (N.C. App., Oct. 3, 2017), the court of appeals held that a fee received by a lawyer as the result of the resolution of a case his firm took on a contingency basis before the lawyer separated from his wife was not marital or divisible property. The court based this decision on the fact that the lawyer did not receive the fee until after the date of separation and did not have a right to receive the fee on the date of separation because the agreement provided that no fee would be received if there was no recovery in the case. The appellate court reversed the trial court decision that a portion of the fee was ‘deferred compensation’ for work the husband performed before the date of separation. The trial court had classified this portion of the fee as divisible property pursuant to GS 50-20(b)(4)(b) which provides that divisible property includes property received “as the result of the efforts of either spouse during the marriage and before the date of separation.”

This decision by the court of appeals is significant because it is the first time the court of appeals actually reviewed a decision by a trial court interpreting this particular category of divisible property and because the holding of the appellate court seems to say this category is much more limited than the language of the statute indicates.

Temporary orders are very common in domestic cases; ex parte domestic violence protective orders, temporary custody and child support orders, and orders for postseparation support are some examples. What happens to these temporary orders when plaintiff takes a voluntary dismissal of the underlying claim? Does the temporary order remain in effect until the court affirmatively sets it aside or does a voluntary dismissal automatically terminate all temporary orders? Do findings or conclusions made in the temporary orders have any impact on claims brought after the dismissal?

READ POST "What Happens to Temporary Orders When a Case is Dismissed? (October 20, 2017)"

In 2016, the court of appeals held that a voluntary support agreement that modified an existing child support order was void because neither party filed a motion to modify as required by GS 50-13.7. Catawba County ex. Rel. Rackley, 784 SE2d 620 (N.C. App. 2016). On September 29, 2017, the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and held that the order was not void.

This is important. Among other things, this decision means that if a court accepts a consent order for modification and the requirements of GS 50-13.7 have not been met, the consent order nevertheless is valid and enforceable. However, GS 50-13.7 still requires that a motion be filed and that the court conclude there has been a substantial change in circumstances before modifying a child support or a child custody order can be modified. The failure to comply with the statute is legal error that will support reversal by the court of appeals if there is a direct appeal.

In my last post, I wrote about the marital property presumption and the significance of that presumption in the classification of marital property. Divisible property is not marital property, so the marital property presumption does not apply to help with the classification of property, value or debt acquired after the date of separation. So when there is evidence that marital property has increased in value between separation and the ED trial, does one party have to prove the cause of the increase before the court can distribute the increased value? Or, when one party has received income from a marital asset, like a rental house or an LLC, does one party have to prove that the income was not received as the result of the actions of a party before the court can divide the income between the parties?

READ POST "Equitable Distribution: Divisible Property and Burdens of Proof (September 22, 2017)"

Immediately following the definition of marital property in G.S. 50-20(b)(1), the statute states “[i]t is presumed that all property acquired after the date of marriage and before the date of separation is marital property except property which is separate property under subdivision (2) of this subsection.” This presumption probably is the most important core principle of classification of property in North Carolina equitable distribution because it defines the burdens of proof.

When a court is considering whether to hold a party in civil contempt for the failure to comply with provisions in a child custody order, must the court inform that parent that he has the right to a court-appointed attorney if he wants an attorney and is unable to afford one?

The court of appeals recently held that the answer to that question must be determined on a “case-by-case basis” with appointed counsel being required only “where assistance of counsel is necessary for the adequate presentation of the merits, or to otherwise insure fundamental fairness.”

READ POST "Right to Counsel in Civil Contempt Proceeding for Violation of Custody Order (August 25, 2017)"

In Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S.Ct. 2584, 2607 (2015), the Supreme Court of the United States held “the Constitution … does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.” Citing this specific language from Obergefell, the Supreme Court again held in a more recent opinion that a state must “provide same-sex couples the constellation of benefits that the States have linked to marriage.” Paven v. Smith, 137 S.Ct. 2075, 2077-78 (2017).

Acknowledging this clear mandate that the state treat same-sex marriages the same as opposite sex marriages and afford the same rights and responsibilities to all married couples, the North Carolina General Assembly enacted an important but easy to miss amendment to a seldom referenced statute as part of the voluminous 2017 Technical Corrections Bill.

READ POST "New Legislation Acknowledges Same-Sex Marriage (August 8, 2017)"