Recent blog posts - 60 of 69

In an opinion published on January 5, 2016, a three-judge panel of the NC Court of Appeals addressed a frequently contested issue in power of sale foreclosure proceedings: whether the party seeking to foreclose by power of sale provided sufficient evidence to establish it was the holder of the note under G.S. 45-21.16(d)(i).   See In re Foreclosure of Kenley, ____ N.C. App. ____ (Jan. 5, 2016).

Today’s post was written by my colleague Alyson Grine. While she works and writes primarily about criminal law, the topic of implicit bias is an important one for the civil side of things as well.

READ POST "Implicit Bias: Why Race is Hard Even when People are Good* (January 20, 2016)"

It is not uncommon to see custody orders – both orders entered by North Carolina courts and orders from other states – containing language such as “Law enforcement officers shall assist in the enforcement of this custody order,” or “Law enforcement shall pick up the minor child and deliver the child to the custodial parent.” While most judges intentionally enter such orders only when there is reason to be concerned for the safety of the children, these provisions often are included as standard provisions in custody order templates throughout North Carolina and are extremely common in form orders used in other states.

Must a law enforcement officer comply with such a provision in an order from another state? Does a North Carolina judge have the authority to order law enforcement involvement? Case law and statutes indicate that authority for law enforcement involvement is limited.

READ POST "Ordering Law Enforcement Officers to Enforce a Child Custody Order (January 15, 2016)"

A plaintiff facing a soon-to-expire limitations period may feel a rush of relief when the complaint is clocked in to the clerk’s office on time and the summons is ready […]

Long ago and far away, title and control of all of a woman’s property vested in her husband upon marriage. In exchange, the husband became responsible for support of the wife for the remainder of her life. The support obligation continued even through divorce, unless the bad conduct of the wife was the reason for the divorce.

This is the common law foundation linking misconduct –fault – to alimony. Over time, the law came to require that any woman seeking alimony first prove that her husband’s conduct rather than her own was the cause of the marital breakup.

*For more information about this new law, see the following supplemental book chapter, Suspected Child Maltreatment Occurring in a Child Care Facility, to the book, Reporting Child Abuse and Neglect […]

In a recent post, I wrote about requiring surrender of firearms in a DVPO. The court of appeals issued on opinion on Tuesday this week discussing when the court can order return of those firearms. In Underwood v. Hudson, the court reversed a trial court order denying return of weapons after the appellate court concluded defendant was not subject to the lifetime ban on possession which arises when a person is convicted of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.”

In North Carolina, a 16 or 17 year old who has resided in the same North Carolina county for six months may petition the district court for an emancipation from his or her parents, guardian, or custodian.  According to statistics from the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), there have been 986 emancipation filings between fiscal year 2007-2008 and 2014-2015, averaging over 120 cases a year.  Despite this number, there is a surprising lack of appellate decisions regarding juvenile emancipations. The lack of opinions has left both district courts and petitioners to figure out what the statutes require.

“Get Cash for Your Structured Settlement Payments NOW!” “See What Your Structured Settlement Payments Can Do!” “Get the Cash You Need Now!” Ever see ads like these and wonder what […]

At common law a landlord confronted with a non-paying tenant had only one hope for regaining possession of rental property: a lease provision spelling out that the tenant’s default would trigger the landlord’s right to repossess the property (commonly referred to as a forfeiture clause). When the parties have agreed in advance to this consequence for failure to pay rent, an action for summary ejectment merely asks the court to enforce the agreement of the parties. The common law rule was that absent such agreement, the landlord was left to the unsatisfactory recourse of cutting his losses by terminating the lease as soon as possible and attempting to collect unpaid rent through an action for money owed — with all of the attendant problems associated with the collection of money judgments.

READ POST "G.S. 42-3: The Landlord’s Life Preserver (December 9, 2015)"