North Carolina Divorce Lawyers Blog

Articles Tagged with divorce lawyer

Published on:

By

Hill v. Durrett, 2022-NCCOA-460.

Facts: Plaintiff and Defendant were married in a friend’s backyard in 2015, and just 14 months later the couple separated. The backyard ceremony was officiated by a Ms. Plante, who was a Reiki master known as Azera Moonhawk. Ms. Plante was Defendant’s friend and was a minister of the Universal Life Church but was not authorized to perform weddings. Plaintiff eventually filed a divorce and equitable distribution action. Plaintiff also sought to have the marriage annulled based on Ms. Plante’s insufficient ordination. Plaintiff did not survive the proceedings and died before they were concluded; his estate carried on with the annulment. Defendant was the one who arranged the entire backyard extravaganza. She was the one who was good friends with Plante/Moonhawk. She was the one who told Plaintiff that Plante was qualified to perform the ceremony. She was the one who confirmed with Plante whether she could perform the ceremony. The trial court annulled. Defendant appealed.

Issue: Was the Plaintiff (his estate) equitably estopped from seeking an annulment?

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Hicks v. Hicks, 2022-NCCOA-139.

Facts: Plaintiff and Defendant attended a mediation to attempt to settle the Equitable Distribution and alimony parts of their case. In mediation, they reached a settlement and memorialized their terms in a consent order, entered in September of 2018. Among those terms, Defendant received a parcel of land with a requirement to refinance the loan to remove Plaintiff’s name and debt. Defendant also received another parcel of land, with a similar refinance provision. Finally, the consent order provided that Plaintiff shall pay a distributive award to Defendant for $87,500, on or before January 1, 2019. Defendant was having difficulty refinancing the loans on the parcels he received. Plaintiff’s counsel reached out the Defendant’s new counsel to discuss the issue of the loans, but then noticed that “Plaintiff” and “Defendant” on the distributive award provision were interchanged (the parties agreed that Plaintiff would be receiving the award). Plaintiff thus filed a Rule 60 motion on April 15, 2020, requesting that the court correct a clerical mistake under 60(a) or such other justifiable relief under 60(b)(6). Plaintiff and her attorney testified that it was the mutual agreement that Plaintiff receive the award, and Defendant pay it. The trial court granted relief under 60(b)(6) and amended the typo. Defendant appeals. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Preston v. Preston, 2022-NCCOA-207.

Facts: Plaintiff and Defendant married in 1988, and began divorce proceedings in 2018. Plaintiff filed his claim for divorce in October of 2018. In July 2019, Defendant filed her answer with motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, improper venue, insufficiency of process, failure to state a claim, and a motion for sanctions. Defendant’s chief argument was that Plaintiff was not a resident of North Carolina and not a resident of Mecklenburg County. The trial court found otherwise. In an interesting turn of events, Defendant verified her complaint for postseparation support, alimony, equitable distribution and fees just a day before the hearing for her motions to dismiss. In her complaint Defendant actually stated that Plaintiff was a resident of North Carolina. Her complaint was then filed an hour after the hearing on the motions to dismiss. Defendant later filed a motion to stay the divorce, which was denied. Plaintiff then motioned for Rule 11 sanctions based on Defendant’s conduct. The trial court granted and ordered that Defendant pay $15,000 in fees to Plaintiff. Defendant appealed. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Shropshire v. Shropshire, 2022-NCCOA-441.

Facts:

Plaintiff and Defendant separated and initiated a case for Equitable distribution (ED). Pursuant to a pretrial Order, the parties filed affidavits for the ED trial. Both parties listed retirement plans under the “marital property” section of the affidavit. This included the Plaintiff’s 401(k) plan. Furthermore, both parties designated that Plaintiff’s retirement plans had values to be determined for date of separation and “net” value. Under the section of the affidavit marked for “divisible property,” neither party listed any property.

In a hearing in August of 2018, the parties testified about ED. In October 2018, the trial court judge told the parties that evidence was going to be reopened so that evidence could be presented that showed the date of trial values for the retirement plans, as well as value of the marital residence. Plaintiff objected to the reopening and filed a motion to recuse.

The motion was denied in trial court and the reopening was allowed. The information was provided over objections, and a final ED order was entered. Plaintiff appealed. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Wooten v. Wooten, 867 S.E.2d 767 (N.C. Ct. App. 2022)

Wooten v. Wooten came before the North Carolina Court of Appeals on Defendant Husband’s appeal of the trial court’s Summary Judgment ordering specific performance by both parties.

FACTS: The parties married in 1997 and divorced in 2016. When they divorced, they signed a Separation Agreement that stated that Defendant Husband would pay Plaintiff Wife $4000 per month and put $8500 per year into the children’s 529 educational savings plans. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Brady v. Brady, 2022 NCCOA 200 (N.C. Ct. App. 2022)

Brady v. Brady came before the NC Court of Appeals on Defendant Husband’s appeal.

ISSUE: What findings of facts are required to support awards of alimony, a distributive award, and the unequal distribution of assets. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Recent high-profile trials have been live-streamed with great success. The Depp-Heard defamation trial and Rittenhouse prosecution were widely watched by many across the entire world through new media channels such as YouTube, as well as traditional television broadcasting. Recently, someone asked me if North Carolina would allow cameras into our courtrooms for similar high-profile cases. Remarkably, the Rules of Practice for Superior and District Court already allow them to do so. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Everyone has seen a hearing on TV, but very few people know the process that leads up to that hearing. 95% of family law cases get settled before they even go to trial. Family law cases can be very stressful, but knowing what’s coming next can help lessen that stress. For a few weeks, we will look at the steps of a family law case prior to a hearing.

Part 6:  Mediation Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Everyone has seen a hearing on TV, but very few people know the process that leads up to that hearing. 95% of family law cases get settled before they even go to trial. Family law cases can be very stressful, but knowing what’s coming next can help lessen that stress. For a few weeks, we will look at the steps of a family law case prior to a hearing.

Part 5:  Motions and Rule 5 Notice Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Aviles v. Vulovic, E076743 (filed June 9, 2022).

Facts: Plaintiff Husband married Defendant Wife in 2011. However, Wife’s previous divorce had not yet finalized. Wife’s first marriage ended in a separation, and in 2006 Wife filed a petition for divorce. Wife believed that a divorce would just materialize automatically six months after the filing of the petition. In 2007, Wife and Husband began dating. They married in Las Vegas in 2011. Wife later appeared for a child support hearing with her former husband, and the presiding judge informed her that she had not yet been divorced. Wife eventually finalized the divorce in 2012. Wife and Husband had two more wedding ceremonies in 2013, however they never received a marriage certificate from the court. Husband and Wife separated in 2020 and were in court for spousal support. Husband claimed that Wife was barred from seeking support because she was in a bigamous marriage. It was the trial court’s finding that Wife was a putative spouse and awarded her temporary spousal support. Husband appealed. Continue reading →