Recent blog posts - 53 of 69

**UPDATE: Effective July 21, 2017, Session Law 2017-158 expands the clerk’s civil contempt authority. The clerk now has the authority to exercise civil contempt in any instance when the clerk has original subject matter jurisdiction and issued the order that is the basis for the civil contempt in addition to any instance where a statute expressly provides for the clerk’s civil contempt authority.  See S.L. 2017-158, Sec. 11.  

Earlier this month, I had the pleasure of attending the elected clerk of superior court summer educational conference in Nags Head, NC.  The elected clerks gather annually this time of year to install new conference officers, attend educational sessions, and generally catch up on matters concerning the court system throughout the State.  I was invited by the clerk’s program committee to teach a session on civil contempt.  As part of my session, we identified the statutes that authorize the clerk to use civil contempt.  As noted in my previous post on the clerk’s contempt authority, the clerk only has the authority to use civil contempt where a statute expressly provides for it.  G.S. 5A-23(b).  Below is a list of statutes that authorize the clerk to use civil contempt.

READ POST "Drilling Down on the Clerk’s Civil Contempt Authority (September 28, 2016)"

My middle child is named Charles. The other day I referred to him as Charles in Charge.  He asked me why teachers and other adults always called him that. Ah, me. It seems my cultural references are dated.

Regardless of whether you are old enough to have had a Scott Baio poster in your room, if your work involves the courts, it is a good idea to know who is in charge of district court in your district.

*Since this post was originally published, NC DHHS Division of Social Services has enacted a policy to address the issue of educational stability for children in foster care, which you can access here (see section XIII).

It’s September, which means that children have gone back to school. When the school year starts, most children know which school they are attending. But, a child who has been removed from his home and placed in foster care may not know which school he will be going to. Is it the old school? Is it a new school where the placement is located?  If a child experiences multiple placements, does the child change schools each time the placement is in a different school district? Changing schools impacts children. That impact may be even more significant when a child is also experiencing a change in both her home environment and caretaker. As of December 12, 2016, a new federal education law goes into effect that prioritizes educational stability for children in foster care. But educational stability for a child in foster care is something that can be addressed now.

My post last week discussed the decision in Mannise v. Harrell that told us a Chapter 50B proceeding is an in personam proceeding that requires all three prongs of personal jurisdiction. That case also reminded us that a plaintiff has the burden of producing evidence, “direct or indirect,” to establish prima facie that personal jurisdiction exists when a defendant properly objects to personal jurisdiction. As illustrated in Mannise, many plaintiffs in 50B proceedings are not prepared to meet this burden.

READ POST "Domestic Violence: more on Mannise and personal jurisdiction (September 16, 2016)"

This post is the second in a series focused on In re Gault, the U.S. Supreme Court case which mandated that the core due process rights applicable to adults in criminal proceedings must also be afforded to juveniles who are alleged to be delinquent. Perhaps the most significant of these rights is the right to counsel.

The Supreme Court strongly condemned the denial of counsel to children in a proceeding which carries “the awesome prospect of incarceration” until the age of majority. 387 U.S. 1, 36. In such proceedings, a juvenile needs legal representation “to cope with problems of law, to make skilled inquiry into the facts, to insist upon regularity of the proceedings, and to ascertain whether he has a defense and to prepare and submit it.” Id. Thus, in delinquency hearings “which may result in commitment to an institution in which the juvenile’s freedom is curtailed,” the child and his or her parents must be notified of the child’s right to counsel, or if they cannot afford counsel, that counsel will be appointed. Id. The NC Juvenile Code codified and expanded the right to counsel in G.S. 7B-2000 by requiring the appointment of counsel for all juveniles who are alleged to be delinquent without the need to show indigency. Despite this progress, advocates still question whether the right to counsel for juveniles extends far enough.

While I always have believed a Chapter 50B proceeding requires all three prongs of personal jurisdiction as do most other civil actions, a few appellate courts in other states have held that some DVPOs can be entered without concern for long-arm statutory authorization or the minimum contacts required by Due Process. The North Carolina Court of Appeals finally had the opportunity to address the issue for the first time this week. The court held that because of the significant impact a DVPO has on a defendant, entry of any final DVPO without all three aspects of personal jurisdiction violates “Due Process and offend[s] traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”

On Tuesday the NC Court of Appeals handed down an opinion in Crawford v. Nawrath, a Mecklenburg County case involving the calculation of damages for violation of the Residential Rental Agreement Act (RRAA). The Crawford opinion is unpublished and thus does not constitute controlling legal authority but nevertheless is interesting and informative, both procedurally and substantively.

Nunc pro tunc is a phrase used in an order or judgment when the court wants the order or judgment to be effective as of a date in the past rather than on the date the judgment or order is entered into the court record. Black’s Law Dictionary defines the term “nunc pro tunc” to mean “now for then; [a term signifying] ‘a thing is now done which should have been done on the specified date.’” Recent cases from the North Carolina Court of Appeals have made it clear that nunc pro tunc is a tool available only in extremely limited circumstances.

What happens when a creditor gets a judgment against a debtor in Alabama (or another state) but then the judgment debtor moves to North Carolina, or the bulk of its property is in North Carolina?  Can the creditor can get its “foreign” (meaning out-of-state, not out-of-country) judgment enforced in North Carolina?  Yes, and typically the most efficient way is to follow the steps in North Carolina’s version of the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (“UEFJA”), G.S. 1C-1703 through -1708.

If the creditor follows the UEFJA’s filing and notice requirements, the foreign judgment will be “docketed and indexed in the same manner as a judgment of this State.”  The creditor can seek enforcement of the judgment just as if it had originally been entered in North Carolina.  But the UEFJA further provides that the judgment “is subject to the same defenses as a judgment of this State[.]” G.S. 1C-1703(c).  To that end, before enforcement can begin, the judgment debtor has a 30-day window to file a motion for relief from (or notice of defenses to) the judgment.  G.S. 1C-1704(b).  The UEFJA goes on to state that the debtor can raise “any other ground for which relief from a judgment of this State would be allowed.” 1C-1705(a).

On the face of things, the UEFJA’s “same defenses” and “any other ground” language seems pretty broad and appears to open up all kinds of challenges.  But does it really mean all defenses that a debtor might raise to enforcement of a North Carolina judgment?  More pointedly, does every Rule 60(b) basis for “relief” from judgment apply?

It is not always clear when a court can exercise authority sua sponte, or to put it in English, on its own motion, without a party specifically requesting that the court act.  Last week, the court of appeals held that a trial court does not have the authority to change venue sua sponte. Unless a defendant files a timely motion requesting a change and establishes grounds for moving the case to another county, a plaintiff has the right to prosecute a civil case in the county of his or her own choosing.

READ POST "No Sua Sponte Change of Venue Allowed (August 26, 2016)"