BLOG
When a litigant presents a complaint and asks that the case be heard in small claims court, a clerk has different responsibilities than when a plaintiff wishes to file any […]
An equitable distribution judgment was entered 11 years ago. The order states plaintiff is entitled to a percentage of defendant’s retirement pay when defendant begins to receive it. The judgment also states that plaintiff’s counsel will draft a QDRO. Now it is time for defendant to retire but no one ever drafted a QDRO. Is there a problem? Can the court enter one now?
Last month the U.S. Supreme Court decided Ohio v. Clark, 135 S.Ct. 2173 (2015). The Court determined whether a teacher’s testimony of a child’s statements to her was barred by the Confrontation Clause. My colleague, Jessica Smith, wrote a blog post about the holding and its impact in criminal cases. But, what about the world of child protective services?
In a prior post, I wrote about SB 331, which proposed several changes to the delinquency subchapter of the Juvenile Code. That bill didn’t make it. Instead, it became HB […]
In an earlier post, I talked about some of the deficiencies in a complaint that can prevent a party from taking advantage of the statute of limitations extension in Rule […]
In my last post, Ex Parte DVPOs, I promised more on ex parte DVPOs. But the Court of Appeals issued an important decision this week on another aspect of Chapter 50B – the definition of ‘dating relationship’ – so I’ll come back to ex parte orders later.
*This post was updated on July 27, 2015 to incorporate a reference to GS 28A-19-12.
Yesterday, the NC Court of Appeals published an impactful case in the area of estates – In re Taylor, ___ NC App ___ (July 7, 2015). It provides clarity in areas where there has been a varied set of practices from county to county. What did the court say?
In my last post, I outlined the most significant procedural differences between general civil actions and actions brought in small claims court, which are governed in large part by GS Ch. 7A, Art. 19. Overall, the procedure in small claims court is simpler, faster, and cheaper. The substantive rules and procedures for summary ejectment, the most common small claims action, are highly specialized and allow for even faster relief. Summary ejectment is a legal action brought by a landlord seeking to remove a breaching tenant from possession of rental property. North Carolina joins a large number of states in offering landlords this carefully crafted remedy, which may at first appear unusual in its provision of frank preferential treatment to a particular group of litigants seeking a particular remedy. The US Supreme Court approved such specialized treatment many years ago, however, pointing out that providing an expedited procedure for these cases makes sense in the larger context of laws prohibiting the common law practice of self-help eviction. “The objective of achieving rapid and peaceful settlement of possessory disputes between landlord and tenant has ample historical explanation and support. It is not beyond the State’s power to implement that purpose by enacting special provisions applicable only to possessory disputes between landlord and tenant.” Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56, 72, 92 S. Ct. 862, 873, 31 L. Ed. 2d 36 (1972). In this blog entry, I’ll identify the most significant distinctions between the usual procedural rules applicable to small claims court and those applicable only to actions for summary ejectment.
The North Carolina Court of Appeals has had quite a bit to say about ex parte DVPOs in the past few years. Repeatedly recognizing that while “an ex parte DVPO may be short-lived, … it has a potentially long-lasting and serious impact on a defendant, whether or not a DVPO is later issued,” Stancil v. Stancil, NC App (June 16, 2015), the court consistently has interpreted GS 50B-2 strictly.
Spoiler Alert !! Effective June 2, 2015, amendments were made to G.S. 7B-504.