North Carolina Divorce Lawyers Blog

Articles Tagged with child support obligation

Published on:

By

Clute v. Gosney, 2023-NCCOA-______ (2023).

  • Facts: In 1994, a couple got married and had two children. In 2006, they separated due to irreconcilable differences. On April 5, 2006, they entered into a separation agreement to settle their marital and property rights. The agreement included provisions for child support, the right to enforce the agreement through legal action, and a clause stating that the agreement would not be incorporated into a divorce judgment. The agreement was signed under seal and notarized. In April 2022, the wife filed a complaint in Mecklenburg County District Court, alleging breach of contract and, in the alternative, seeking child support based on North Carolina Child Support Guidelines. She claimed that the husband had violated the agreement by reducing child support payments unilaterally and failing to fulfill other obligations, such as medical expenses, insurance coverage, and college expenses for their son. The wife requested specific performance of the contract, attorney’s fees, and retroactive child support. In response, the husband filed a motion to dismiss under the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. In August 2022, the trial court granted the husband’s motion to dismiss, denied the wife’s request for attorney’s fees, and dismissed her complaint with prejudice. The wife appealed this decision.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In most cases here in North Carolina, child support has been reduced to an equation based upon guidelines that have been approved by the state. It is much like filing taxes—there are inputs for each parent’s income, the number of children, and the custodial schedule. Schedules are then used to determine the obligation for support. There may be certain line items that add or subtract from one parent’s obligation. In some circumstances, the court (or a parent) may see fit to depart from the guidelines, in which case a separate set of standards is used to calculate support; this is called deviation. In these cases, the actual expenses for the children are factors in determining the support obligation. Actual expenses are not typically part of the formula in guideline cases. However, there exists one category in the guidelines that does account for expenses. It is called extraordinary expenses. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

WINEBARGER v. STEEN, 2022-NCCOA-739.

Facts: Mother and Father split and had a case with child support. Mother requested to deviate from the child support guidelines. On 10 June 2021, the trial court imposed a $290.38 child support obligation on Father, consistent with the child support guidelines. No findings or conclusions of law were made concerning Mother’s income and expenses. No child support worksheet was attached, although one was referenced in the Order. Father’s income was found to be $52,781.05, even though the Order also found that Father was totaling $63,975.05 in income earlier in the Order. No explanation was given for the discrepancy. Among sources of income, $4,967 was included as part of a Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) Loan. Father appealed. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Mendez v. Mendez, 2021-NCCOA-680 (2021)

  • Facts: Plaintiff was ordered to pay defendant $2,271 per month in child support pursuant to a child support order filed in 2015. In 2018, Defendant filed a motion to modify child support. Defendant’s monthly gross income was $3,964. She asserted that the children’s needs have increased with their age, including involvement in new extracurricular activities such as music, fencing, and acting classes. For the initial 2015 order, Plaintiff made much more income. He was a department of defense contractor, owned a business, and VA disability benefits. In 2019, Plaintiff’s VA benefits were increased due to his diagnosis with prostate cancer. In 2018, Plaintiff was admitted to law school and would be attending when his cancer treatments ended. The trial court reduced Plaintiff’s child support obligation due to his decreased income. Defendant appeals.

Continue reading →