Recent blog posts - 37 of 70

On January 1, 2019, the process to appeal abuse, neglect, dependency (A/N/D) and termination of parental rights (TPR) orders designated in G.S. 7B-1001 changed significantly. Amendments to G.S. 7B-1001 now require that some orders be appealed directly to the NC Supreme Court, bypassing the Court of Appeals (COA). Other orders have new notice of appeal and timing requirements. Amendments to the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure (Rules) also became effective on January 1^st and impact appeals of all orders including those designated in G.S. 7B-1001.

Last week, I attended the Supreme Court’s CLE program, “Information about Termination of Parental Rights Cases and the Rules of Appellate Procedure.” As I listened to the justices and other speakers, I started to hear David Bowie singing “ch-ch-ch-changes.” There are a lot of changes and procedures that you need to know.

If I had to guess, I would say the most common filing in a decedent’s estate is the year’s allowance.  Last year in NC, there were 18,000 filings for a year’s allowance.   There are two types of year’s allowance: one for children of the decedent and one for the spouse of the decedent.  This post focuses on some basics of the spousal year’s allowance.

According to Hollywood, court process is served by guys wearing backward baseball caps pretending to deliver pizzas. They roll up, toss a summons-stuffed cardboard box at an unsuspecting defendant-to-be, then ride away proclaiming, “You’ve been served, dude!” (Remember Seth Rogan practicing for the gig in Pineapple Express? Oh, wait. I mean, no, I haven’t watched that movie either.)

Of course this isn’t how private process servers really do things. Even in states where private process servers are authorized to do this work, they typically have to follow a tighter set of rules. But in North Carolina, things are even stricter—the use of private process servers is very limited in the first place.  In most cases, the sheriff is the proper service agent for personal service of summonses, and the sheriff must refuse or neglect to serve, or must actually try and fail to effectuate service, before private process servers come into play.  Locklear v. Cummings, 822 S.E.2d 587, 593 (N.C. Ct. App. 2018); N. Carolina State Bar v. Hunter, 217 N.C. App. 216, 224 (2011).

North Carolina now sits ten months away from implementation of the Juvenile Justice Reinvestment Act (JJRA), widely referred to as “Raise the Age.” I had the opportunity to attend a summit hosted by Justice Initiatives in Charlotte last week focused on readiness for raise the age implementation. The recent report from the Juvenile Jurisdiction Advisory Committee (JJAC) is full of information about what still needs to be done for optimal implementation. The recommendations contain two major themes: provide legislative fixes to avoid unintended consequences and fully fund the new system.

I am excited to announce our new listserv for appointed guardian ad litem (GAL) attorneys in G.S. Chapter 35A adult guardianship cases. This new listserv administered by the School of Government is available for guardian ad litem (GAL) attorneys appointed in G.S. Chapter 35A adult guardianship proceedings across North Carolina.

While there are no doubt numerous ex parte custody orders entered by North Carolina courts daily throughout the state, there is very little appellate guidance regarding the circumstances under which such orders are appropriate and regarding the procedure that should be followed after such an order has been entered. Because these orders are interlocutory and not subject to immediate appeal, we probably never will have much case law to direct us.

READ POST "What the law says about ex parte custody orders (February 15, 2019)"

After teaching and advising magistrates about landlord-tenant law for a little more than a decade, I’ve become familiar with their most common errors – which have, somewhat discouragingly, remained pretty […]

A guardian of the estate for any unemancipated minor may be appointed under G.S. Chapter 35A to receive and administer property on the minor’s behalf.  G.S. 35A-1221; G.S. 35A-1251; G.S. […]

Last week the Court of Appeals breathed new life into a decades-old law that requires district courts to refer juveniles who have been adjudicated delinquent, prior to disposition, to the area mental health, developmental disabilities, and substance abuse services director for an interdisciplinary evaluation if any evidence that the juvenile is mentally ill has been presented. This new decision, In the Matter of E.M., __ N.C.App. __ (January 15, 2019), raises many questions like, does it really mean any evidence of mental illness? And does it matter if the juvenile has already received mental health services? And who is the area mental health, developmental disabilities, and substance abuse services director anyways?

In December, the School of Government held the first week of orientation for new district court judges. The class included thirty-one new judges. Most of the judges took the bench […]