In December, the North Carolina Supreme Court filed its long-awaited opinion in State v. Saldierna, __ N.C. __, 794 S.E.2d 474 (December 21, 2016), a juvenile interrogation case heard by the court on February 16, 2016. This decision marks the first time the court has addressed the rights of a juvenile during a custodial interrogation since J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261 (2011), the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case which made age a relevant factor in the Miranda custody test (and reversed the state supreme court on this issue). Saldierna did not directly involve whether the juvenile was in police custody, since he was clearly under arrest. The issue, instead, was whether a juvenile must make a clear and unambiguous request in order to exercise the juvenile’s statutory right to have a parent present during a custodial interrogation. The Supreme Court said yes, reversing the Court of Appeals on this question. This post discusses whether the ruling can be reconciled with J.D.B. and Juvenile Code statutes governing custodial interrogations. Continue Reading
Search Results
Keywords: Rule 59
-
-
It’s Complicated: Venue vs Jurisdiction in A/N/D and TPR Actions
Within North Carolina, the appropriate location of a district court where an abuse neglect or dependency (A/N/D) action is filed is a matter of venue. GS 7B-400. And the appropriate location of the district court where a termination of parental rights (TPR) action is filed is a matter of jurisdiction. GS 7B-1101. Why are they different? Because the statutes governing A/N/D and TPR proceedings have different requirements and impose different limitations on the parties and the court.
The General Assembly has the power to “fix and circumscribe the jurisdiction of the courts,” which can require certain procedures. In re T.R.P., 360 N.C. 588, 590 (2006). A/N/D and TPR cases are statutory in nature and set forth specific requirements that must be followed. Id. In an A/N/D or TPR action, the first place to look is the Juvenile Code (GS Chapter 7B) because it establishes both the procedures and substantive law for these types of juvenile proceedings. See GS 7B-100; -1100. Continue Reading
-
The General Specific: The N.C. Supreme Court Decision In re Foreclosure of Lucks
UPDATE: On March 26, 2019, the NC Court of Appeals in Gray v. Federal National Mortgage Association interpreted Lucks and held while the doctrine of collateral estoppel does not apply to an order not authorizing a non-judicial foreclosure sale, it does apply to an order authorizing a sale.
On December 21, 2016, the North Carolina Supreme Court published a final set of opinions for the year. Without a doubt, one case in particular stopped me in my tracks. The case, In re Foreclosure of Lucks, will have a significant impact on G.S. Chapter 45 power of sale foreclosures going forward. ____ N.C. ____ (Dec. 21, 2016). Here’s both the general and the specific about what the court had to say. Continue Reading
-
Preparing for the Effective Date: UAGPPJA Resources
Tomorrow, December 1, 2016, G.S. Chapter 35B goes into effect in North Carolina. The law incorporates provisions of the Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Jurisdiction Act (UAGPPJA). As I noted in this earlier post, it applies to all new incompetency and adult guardianship proceedings filed on or after December 1st and requires the court to ensure jurisdiction is proper under Chapter 35B before proceeding with the case. Keep in mind that if a case is already pending as of December 1st, the court is not required to apply the G.S. Chapter 35B analysis related to jurisdiction for initial filings, even if the hearing takes place after December 1st.
UAGPPJA, as adopted in G.S. Chapter 35B, also provides a new mechanism for transferring existing adult guardianship cases to and from North Carolina and for registering out of state guardianship orders in North Carolina. The transfer and registration provisions apply as of December 1, 2016 to all cases in NC, regardless of whether they were filed before, on, or after that date.
The text of G.S. Chapter 35B is now available on the N.C. General Assembly’s website. Note the statutes were renumbered when they were codified. Therefore, the statutory references in the session law, S.L. 2016-72, are no longer correct. In addition to the primary law, I wanted to use this post to identify some other resources now available to assist with the implementation of UAGPPJA in N.C. Continue Reading
-
Use of deposition testimony at trial
Depositions are primarily a discovery tool. When it comes to trial, live witness testimony is “more desirable,” Investors Title Ins. Co. v. Herzig, 330 N.C. 681, 690 (1992), and Rule of Civil Procedure 43 states that, “[i]n all trials the testimony of witnesses shall be taken orally in open court, unless otherwise provided by these rules.” In “sharply limited” circumstances, however, deposition testimony may be used at trial, Warren v. City of Asheville, 74 N.C. App. 402, 408 (1985), and Rule 32 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure sets out (most of) those circumstances.
Under Rule 32, deposition testimony may be used at trial if it meets three criteria:
- It is being used against a party who was present or represented at or had reasonable notice of the deposition;
- It falls within one of the categories in Rule 32(a)(1) through (a)(4); and
- It is admissible under the Rules of Evidence (applied as though the witness were present and testifying).
-
No Sua Sponte Change of Venue Allowed
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.
-
Court Approval of Minor Settlements in North Carolina
A minor injured through negligence or other wrongdoing may bring an action through a representative to recover damages for pain and suffering, permanent injury, and impairment of earning capacity. (A claim for reimbursement of the minor’s medical expenses typically belongs to the parents.) Although minors generally are legally incapable of binding themselves to contracts, the law allows a minor’s claims to be resolved through a settlement agreement. The settlement, however, is not enforceable against the minor unless it has first been investigated and approved by the court. Sigmund Sternberger Found., Inc. v. Tannenbaum, 273 N.C. 658, 677 (1968); Ballard v. Hunter, 12 N.C. App. 613, 619 (1971). Even if the settlement is arranged by a parent, guardian, guardian ad litem, estate administrator, or attorney, the minor cannot be bound absent prior court approval. Sell v. Hotchkiss, 264 N.C. 185, 191 (1965); In re Reynolds, 206 N.C. 276 (1934); Hagins v. Phipps, 1 N.C. App. 63 (1968). The rule applies not just to claims settled after an action is filed, but also to pre-litigation settlements including waivers of a minor’s right to sue. Creech v. Melnik, 147 N.C. App. 471, 475 (2001).
The purpose of the court’s review is to protect the interests of the minor. The investigation must focus on the minor’s welfare and fairness to the minor under the circumstances. See Redwine v. Clodfelter, 226 N.C. 366, 370 (1946) (minor’s welfare is the “guiding star”); Reynolds v. Reynolds, 208 N.C. 578, 631−32 (1935) (affirming “fair, just, and equitable” settlement). Continue Reading
-
The Guardian of Last Resort
After receiving a report and finding a need for protective services, the county department of social services (DSS) requests the DSS attorney file a petition with the court to adjudicate Jane Doe an incompetent adult under G.S Chapter 35A. The matter is heard by the clerk of superior court. DSS, as the petitioner, has the burden of proof. Through the presentation of testimony and other evidence at the hearing, including a multidisciplinary evaluation ordered by the clerk and prepared by DSS, the clerk determines that there is clear, cogent and convincing evidence that Jane is incompetent and that her best interests will be served by appointing DSS as her guardian of the person. Continue Reading
-
Imputing Income: So What is Bad Faith?
In my last post, Imputing Income: Voluntary Unemployment is Not Enough, I wrote about the bad faith rule; the long-established rule that child support and alimony orders must be based on the actual present income of the parties unless there is cause to impute income. When income is imputed, a support order is based on earning capacity rather than actual income. The bad faith rule provides that earning capacity can be used only when a party is intentionally depressing actual income in deliberate disregard of a support obligation.
So what findings of fact are sufficient to establish bad faith?
-
Subject Matter Jurisdiction in Actions for Summary Ejectment
For hundreds of years, the law has provided a procedure for landlords to obtain assistance from the justice system in ousting a tenant and taking back rental property. In North Carolina in the late 19th Century, just as today, “proceedings in ejectment” were one of the most common types of civil cases filed. I recently spent some time reading many older landlord-tenant cases in an effort to trace the development of the law pertaining to subject matter jurisdiction in summary ejectment cases. I began with some reservations about the continued relevance of these cases. After all, North Carolina’s entire court system was revised – and the Rules of Civil Procedure adopted– after many of these cases were decided. Justices of the peace no longer hold court, and appeal from small claims court is to district—not superior—court today. What I found striking in doing this research was actually how little has changed. The questions in the late 1800s may have used different legal terminology, but would be familiar to any small claims magistrate. One of the most common issues, for example, was whether a seller/landlord could regain possession of property subject to a rent-to-own agreement by way of summary ejectment. Another was whether a buyer by way of foreclosure could use summary ejectment to oust the former owner. What I found is that the rules governing jurisdiction in ejectment cases have remained remarkably consistent in application, although the underlying rationale for the rules has, from the beginning, been considerably more variable. This post attempts to summarize those procedural rules where they are clear. In my next post, I’ll discuss some troublesome areas in which clarity is lacking. Continue Reading