Recent blog posts - 47 of 69

N.C. Gen. Stat. 50-16.9(b) provides that “if a dependent spouse who is receiving postseparation support or alimony from a supporting spouse … engages in cohabitation, the postseparation support or alimony shall terminate.” In Setzler v. Setzler, 781 SE2d 64 (NC App., 2015), the court stated that “the primary intent in making cohabitation grounds for termination of alimony was to evaluate the economic impact of a relationship on a dependent spouse and, consequently, avoid bad faith receipts of alimony;” bad faith meaning a dependent spouse avoiding remarriage for the sole purpose of continuing to receive alimony. So if the relationship is such that one would expect the parties to be married, the assumption is the only reason they are not married is the desire to avoid the termination of alimony. For more on defining cohabitation, see my earlier post Alimony: Cohabitation is All About Money After All.

Cohabitation clearly terminates an award of support. What if the dependent spouse is cohabitating or has cohabitated at the time she or he is asking the court for an award of postseparation support or alimony? Is cohabitation a defense to the establishment of a support obligation? Does it matter whether the dependent spouse still is cohabitating at the time of the support request?

READ POST "Cohabitation is a Defense to Alimony (June 9, 2017)"

Update: On June 5, 2017, the NC Supreme Court allowed the state’s motion for a temporary stay of the Court of Appeals’ opinion in T.K., which indicates that further appellate […]

When I was a child, sharing the backseat of a station wagon with my brother and sister on long summer road trips, we used to play the First Thing You […]

Why it matters: Rule 9(j) very briefly.

Rule 9(j) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure requires plaintiffs filing medical malpractice complaints to include a specific allegation that the medical care and records have been reviewed by an expert who meets certain qualifications and who is willing to testify that there was a breach of the standard of care.  If a plaintiff fails to include the Rule 9(j) language before the underlying statute of limitations expires, the complaint “shall be dismissed.”  This special pleading requirement does not apply to other types of malpractice or to ordinary negligence actions.  Rule 9(j) was enacted as an attempt to curb frivolous medical malpractice claims.  But it has had the side effect of generating more than its fair share of appellate wrangling.  Since it was enacted in 1995, well over 100 published opinions have been issued interpreting its undefined provisions, reconciling it with other procedural rules, and determining when it does and does not apply.  [See an overview here.]   One group of those opinions has examined whether the complaint actually alleged a “medical malpractice action” in the first place, or whether it merely stated a claim for ordinary negligence.  If a claim is ordinary negligence, Rule 9(j) does not apply, even if the event occurred in a medical setting and the defendant was a “health care provider.”

Falling in a medical facility

Patient falls–either from standing or lying positions—have featured somewhat prominently in these cases.  Where the court has concluded that the fall involved a provider’s clinical assessment or judgment, the claims have been classified as medical malpractice.  See Sturgill v. Ashe Memorial Hospital, Inc., 186 N.C. App. 624 (2007) (failure to restrain fall-risk patient where restraints required medical order); Deal v. Frye Reg. Med. Ctr, 202 N.C. App. 584 (2010) (unpub’d) (failure to conduct requisite fall risk screening); see also Littlepaige v. US, 528 Fed Appx 289 (4th Cir. 2013) (unpub’d) (failure to secure patient who had been placed on “falls precaution”).

You did your homework, made your estate plans, and executed your last will and testament.  However, after your death, your family or friends are unable to locate your original will.  They may have only a signed or unsigned copy or nothing at all.  Perhaps the original will was destroyed in a fire or lost in a move or a family member was told that the handwritten will wasn’t worth the paper it was written on and they tore it up and threw it away (true story) or your relatives simply are unable to find your original will (tip to friends and family – don’t forget to check the family bible or the freezer).

In these situations, is all hope lost?  Will your property descend pursuant to intestate succession (i.e. to heirs according to State law) despite your careful estate planning?  Well, not quite.  It is possible to probate a lost or destroyed will in North Carolina upon certain proof to the court.   This process is not set forth in statute, but instead is derived from case law.   So where exactly does one seeking to probate a lost or destroyed will start?   Below are some key questions to consider when facing this situation.

Every year when I convene North Carolina criminal defense investigators to plan their sessions for the annual spring public defender conference, I look forward to hearing about new ideas for […]

Juvenile defenders, the court system, the governor, and other advocates recently celebrated a historic moment in juvenile justice. Monday was the 50th Anniversary of the In re Gault decision, which […]

One does not have to be a bankruptcy specialist to be aware of the automatic stay provisions that go into effect immediately upon the filing of any type of bankruptcy proceeding. 11 USC sec. 362. Because the stay is extremely broad and prohibits the continuation or commencement of most legal proceedings against the debtor or the debtor’s property and because violation of the stay can lead to harsh sanctions against creditors and attorneys alike, most lawyers and judges are inclined to immediately stop litigating a case once they become aware that a bankruptcy case has been commenced by one of the parties.

While that generally is an appropriate response, the federal law actually excludes a number of family law proceedings from the scope of the stay.

Subchapter I of G.S. Chapter 7B (the Juvenile Code) governs child abuse, neglect, dependency, and termination of parental rights cases in North Carolina. The Juvenile Code “sets out a sequential process for abuse, neglect, or dependency cases, wherein each required action or event must occur within a prescribed amount of time after the preceding stage in the case.” In re T.R.P., 360 N.C. 588, 593 (2006). Included in the statutory time frames are the timing for entry of orders. What exactly does the Juvenile Code require? And, why does it matter?

In the recent case of Miller v. Miller, (NC App, April 18, 2017), the court of appeals held that a “Timber Agreement” was “too speculative” to be identified as a property interest in equitable distribution. The agreement between a husband and his cousin provided that husband would receive at some point in the future the value of timber growing on a specific track of land. Citing Cobb v. Cobb, 107 NC App 382 (1992), the court stated that the future value of timber that will not mature until many years after the trial should not be considered marital property or a distribution factor, since “characterizing growing trees as a vested property right is far too speculative,” and “an equitable distribution trial would become overwhelmingly complicated.”

This case raises the interesting question of what exactly is the definition of “property” in the context of equitable distribution?

READ POST "Equitable Distribution: What is Property? (May 5, 2017)"