BLOG
The Office of General Counsel of the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts (NCAOC) provides advice and counsel to judicial officials and other NC Judicial Branch employees. They do […]
I am so happy to announce the availability of the 2017 Manual — Abuse, Neglect, Dependency, and Termination of Parental Rights Proceedings in North Carolina.
What’s In It?
This Manual provides easily accessible information about the laws, procedures, and concepts related to abuse, neglect, dependency, and termination of parental rights proceedings in North Carolina. The primary intended audience consists of district court judges, social services attorneys, parents’ attorneys, and guardian ad litem attorney advocates who work in this area of the law.
This 2017 edition is a significant revision of the previous edition (2015) and contains hundreds of pages of new content. It includes changes made to the Juvenile Code by the North Carolina General Assembly in the 2015, 2016, and 2017 sessions as well as appellate decisions published through October 1, 2017. The new content discusses a variety of topics including mandatory concurrent permanency planning, cessation of reasonable efforts and the elimination of reunification as a permanent plan, medical decision-making for a child placed in DSS custody, the reasonable and prudent parent standard, and Foster Care 18−21.
There are nine new checklists that supplement the chapter content and incorporate the legislative changes that apply to the various hearings in abuse, neglect, dependency, and related termination of parental rights proceedings. Before you bypass the chapters to get to the checklists, explore the Manual to see what is in there.
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.
A trustee in a power of sale foreclosure has a fiduciary duty to both the debtor and the creditor. In re Foreclosure of Vogler Realty, Inc., 365 N.C. 389, 397 (2012). The trustee must be impartial in the performance of his or her duties as a disinterested third party and may not give an unfair advantage to one party to the detriment of the other. Id. See also In re Foreclosure by Goddard & Peterson, PLLC, 789 S.E.2d 835, 841 (2016); In re Foreclosure of Real Property for $143,600.00, 156 N.C. App. 477, 483 (2003). This duty is recognized in G.S. Chapter 45, which requires that the notice of hearing include a statement that the trustee is a neutral party and, while holding that position, may not advocate for the creditor or the debtor in the foreclosure proceeding. G.S. 45-21.16(c)(7)(b).
A trustee may be held liable for breach of fiduciary duty through a civil action brought in district or superior court. See Goddard, 789 S.E.2d at 841. If the trustee is an attorney or represented by an attorney, then the attorney also may be subject to sanctions by the N.C. State Bar for violating the N.C. Rules of Professional Conduct. This includes Rule 1.7(a) which prohibits the common representation of multiple clients if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A number of ethics opinions drafted by the Ethics Committee of the State Bar provide guidance to an attorney serving as or representing a trustee in a power of sale foreclosure. See CPR 94; CPR 166; CPR 201; CPR 220; CPR 297; CPR 305; RPC 3; RPC 64; RPC 82; RPC 90; 2004 FEO 3; 2008 FEO 11; 2011 FEO 5; 2013 FEO 5; and 2014 FEO 2.
A new law, Session Law 2017-206, went into effect on August 30, 2017 codifies a number of these opinions. The law contains a modification and addition to G.S. Chapter 45-10 and directly applies to those situations in foreclosure proceedings where an attorney is serving as the trustee. This post will give some preliminary thoughts on the new law as well as briefly discuss some of the related ethics opinions. For a more detailed review and application to a particular case in your practice, I would recommend reviewing the full ethics opinions cited herein.
In a previous post I talked about the law related to who can appear on behalf of a party in a small claims case. To briefly reiterate, small claims law makes two exceptions to the general rule requiring parties to be represented by an attorney if they do not choose to represent themselves. One exception allows corporations to appear in small claims court through an agent. See Duke Power Co. v. Daniels, 86 NC App 469 (1987). The other exception, applicable only in summary ejectment actions, allows agents with actual knowledge of the relevant facts to sign the summary ejectment complaint and (presumably) represent the plaintiff/owner in the small claims action. See GS 7A-216 and 7A-223. Both exceptions are well-established and reasonably straightforward, subject to a few somewhat uncertain points I addressed in my previous post.
Imagine this scenario: Judge A had a busy civil calendar before leaving for vacation. Although all the hearings are complete, the judge did not make rulings on some issues. As […]
The new North Carolina Uniform Power of Attorney Act (the Act) goes into effect on January 1, 2018. I recently blogged about the judicial relief provisions under the Act here. Next Tuesday, December 12th from noon to 1:15 pm, the School of Government in partnership with the N.C. Administrative Office of the Courts will be offering a free webinar on this new law. The Honorable James Stanford, Clerk of Superior Court, Orange County, Allison Smith, NCAOC assistant legal counsel, Janice Davies, an attorney with Davies Law, PLLC, and I will be presenting. Anyone can register for the webinar here. Note, registration closes tomorrow at noon.
The North Carolina General Assembly recently made two important changes to Chapter 50B regarding civil domestic violence protective orders. S.L. 2017-92, “Domestic Violence Appeals and Modifications”, was effective October 1, 2017.
This is a bittersweet post as it is a goodbye to my friend and colleague, LaToya Powell, who has decided to leave the School of Government (SOG). Tomorrow is her last day, and I hope you will join me in wishing her well.
In lawsuits against units of local government, the general rule is that the trial court must throw out the plaintiff’s claims if the unit raises the defense of governmental immunity and the complaint fails to allege a waiver of that immunity. This blog post looks at how detailed a waiver allegation must be for a complaint to survive an assertion of governmental immunity.
The Concept of Waiver
As I’ve explained in prior blog posts (here, here, and here), the defense of governmental immunity protects cities, counties, and other units of local government from civil liability for negligence and other claims – though not constitutional claims – that arise from the performance of governmental functions. The courts have recognized that a unit may waive this immunity through any of the three actions described in the next section. Essentially, by acting in any of those ways, a unit consents to be sued for any civil claims that fall within the scope of the waiver.