Recent blog posts - 46 of 70

Summary ejectment law is a complicated, confusing mishmash of modern-day consumer protection legislation, centuries-old property law, and plain old contract law, Getting in too deeply can lead to a person starting to throw around phrases like livery of seisin (a very old term from feudal England that basically required the old landowner to hand the new landowner a piece of dirt).  That slip into madness is not required. While there’s nothing intuitive about livery of seisin, we’ve all understood contract law since childhood. My six-year-old son once traded his 3-year-old sister two stuffed animals for lifetime rights in “the good chair.” In the complicated world of summary ejectment law, sometimes it’s useful to remember a simple truth: a lease is a contract. So let’s think about what we all know about contracts, and then apply that knowledge to leases.

In an earlier post about high-profile trials, I touched on a trial judge’s authority to restrict photos, audio, video, and broadcast of all or parts of an open court proceeding.  To sum it up, the court has broad discretion to restrict dissemination of the proceedings in order to protect the integrity of the process. And under the right circumstances someone who violates the court’s directive can be punished.

But what about another high-profile trial issue:  When may a judge prevent people from reporting on or talking publicly about the case?  Or punish a person for doing so?

This post is also published on the NC Criminal Law blog. 

Domestic violence protective orders (DVPOs) are available to “persons of the opposite sex who are . . . or have been in a dating relationship,” and who are able to establish that the person that they are or were dating committed an act of domestic violence against them. Persons of the same sex who are or were in a dating relationship don’t have the same opportunity. Is that constitutional? The Supreme Court of South Carolina just addressed a related question, and its opinion suggests that the answer is no.

When a city, county, or other unit of local government is sued for negligence or other torts, it’s common practice for the unit’s attorney to file a motion asking the […]

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)"

Faith and Julie have been neighbors and friends for over twenty years.  They are both 75 years old and take daily walks together.  Julie was recently diagnosed with dementia.  Her daughter, Abby, lives a few hours away and is her general guardian, but rarely visits her mother.  Abby hired an in-home aide to assist Julie around the house.  When Faith tries to visit Julie during the day, the aide tells Faith that Julie is no longer up for visits from her or anyone else.  Faith noticed the aide often leaves for hours at a time during the day and locks Julie in the house while she is gone.  A mutual friend told Faith she recently saw Julie and the aide at an estate lawyer’s office and Julie mentioned she was changing her will.  Faith grows worried about Julie and calls Abby to express her concerns.  Abby is overwhelmed with stress in her own life and states that she trusts the aide, but will check in on her mother soon.  Faith doesn’t see Abby visit or any changes to the aide or the aide’s behavior.

In my previous posts, available here and here, I described elder abuse generally and how adult protective services (APS) through the county departments of social services and guardianship proceedings before the clerk of superior court can be tools to protect against elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation (hereinafter, referred to as “abuse”).  However, just because someone has a guardian, it does not mean the risks of such abuse are eliminated.  In fact, guardians, such as Abby, often create circumstances for such abuse by leaving the adult in vulnerable positions and failing to monitor the adult’s care.  In addition, guardians may be the source of such abuse by taking advantage of and exploiting the authority they are given.  One recent report commissioned by the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging examined such abuse by guardians after growing concern of abusive practices by guardians.  The study concluded the extent of such abuse is unknown nationally due to limited data but there is some evidence that financial exploitation by a guardian is one of the most common types of elder abuse, which frequently includes the guardian overcharging for services that were either not necessary or never performed or misusing the adult’s money by incurring excessive dining and vehicle expenses.  See Elder Abuse Report, pg. 11 and 14.

The risk of the abuse of an adult under guardianship may be mitigated by (i) court screening of potential guardians through criminal and financial background checks and guardian training or certification requirements, and (ii) court oversight after a guardian is appointed through the filing with the court of status reports, which are reports on the care, comfort, and maintenance of the adult, and accountings, which are reports on the financial affairs of the adult. Even with effective screening and oversight, abuse may still occur when someone has a guardian.

So, what steps may someone, like Faith, who is concerned about abuse of someone under guardianship either by the guardian or a third-party take to protect the adult?  

In preparation for the upcoming parent attorney and juvenile defender annual conferences, I reviewed the list of resources and information that we provide for defenders. Our main resource is the Indigent Defense Education (IDE) page on the School of Government (SOG) website. It contains a list of upcoming programs and links to manuals and other resources for public defenders and private assigned counsel.

While speaking with my colleagues and reviewing the SOG site, I realized there are a number of other resources and materials useful for public defenders and private assigned counsel. SOG faculty focus on specific areas of law and work with particular groups of government officials and others who work in that area of law. I decided in this post to share some of the SOG resources outside of IDE that may assist defenders in representing indigent clients in civil cases.

READ POST "SOG Resources for Civil Defenders (August 2, 2017)"

Landlords often encounter a frustrating situation when they file a lawsuit for eviction and past due rent, resulting, ironically, from the interaction of two laws intended to benefit landlords. First, GS 42-29 requires the sheriff to expedite service of process by mailing the tenant the complaints and summons “as soon as practicable.” Within the next five days, and at least two days before the trial, the officer must visit the tenant’s home to attempt personal service. If no one answers the door when the officer knocks, the second special rule for summary ejectment cases kicks in, allowing the officer to simply post the summons and complaint on the door. Such “service by posting” allows the trial to go forward even though the tenant has not been personally served.

READ POST "New Legislation regarding Summary Ejectment (July 28, 2017)"

Earlier this week, a spectator at Bill Cosby’s sexual assault trial was found guilty of contempt of court for posting recordings to YouTube of the closing arguments.  A Pennsylvania trial court judge sentenced the spectator to 50 hours of community service for her actions.  She admitted she violated a court order, but apparently she had been willing to take the risk.  According to ABC News, she “viewed Cosby’s celebrated sexual assault trial as the ‘one time’ she might produce a viral online video.” Pennsylvania courts have some pretty strict rules about recording trials. For this high-profile case in particular, though, the court had also entered a specific decorum order barring any recording or any communication from any device within the courtroom.

Of course, all this happened in the context of Pennsylvania court rules. So let’s look at whether a smartphone-wielding spectator in a North Carolina trial (civil or criminal) could be subject to a contempt order for similar behavior.  I believe the answer is yes, under the right circumstances.

Since the initial publication of this post, the Governor signed H362. This post was amended on July 31, 2017 to reflect that change and reference the session law.

The 2017 Legislative Session created and amended various statutes affecting child welfare. Some of those changes are effective now and others will become effective at later dates. This post highlights those amendments that directly impact practice in abuse, neglect, dependency, or termination of parental rights actions. A more complete summary of the numerous legislative changes can be found on the School of Government website, here.