The House: The pretrial order stated that the marital home in Denver, North Carolina was marital property. Defendant appealed and said the trial court erred by classifying this as marital property!
The evidence was that Defendant’s stated intentions were that he intended the $200,000+ down payment was used for a home that he intended to build for Plaintiff. Defendant changed his mind at trial, and the court did not believe him.
Pension Plans: There were two pension plans. The parties stipulated to the marital portion and the fair market value of the monthly benefits on the date of separation. Defendant argued that experts were needed to testify as to life expectancy and present value, otherwise the pensions could not be distributed. The trial court also attempted to “offset” the value of one pension with the other.
The COA ruled that the trial court followed Bishop properly, but was improper in “offsetting” the monthly benefits of each pension.
DABEERUDDIN KHAJA, Plaintiff, v. FATIMA HUSNA, Defendant.
This case is about alimony.
The parties were married for 2 years. Husband was awarded alimony.
Because neither party was domiciled in India when an annulment was awarded, the trial court did not err in giving no effect to the Indian Annulment proceeding.
Prior to the alimony trial, Wife was sanctioned and unable to submit evidence at the alimony trial. Even though there were contrary facts presented, enough facts were heard by the trial court to uphold the ruling.
Based on all the evidence presented, it was not an abuse of discretion for the judge to award $2,500 per month for 8 years (for a 2 year marriage).
Husband was properly awarded retroactive alimony, even though he did not plead this, since the Hill v. Hill decision eliminated the requirement for such a pleading.
The $110,000 in attorneys fees award from Wife to Husband was reasonable for the work required in this case due to complex family law issues, international jurisprudence, and that Husband had no estate. Also, there were two appeals, and “”A]n award of attorney’s fees for services performed on appeal should ordinarily be granted, provided the general statutory requirements for such an award are duly met, especially where the appeal is taken by the supporting spouse.
ROBERT RICHARD KOZEC, JR., Plaintiff, v. KRISTEN ANNE MURPHY, Defendant.
This case is about custody.
A permanent Custody Order was entered in 2013. In 2016, an Ex Parte Ordered was entered requiring Father to have no contact with the minor children. Since there was no showing of “substantial change in circumstances”, which is a statutory requirement, the 2016 Emergency Order is vacated.
CHRISTINA M. WHITMORE, Plaintiff, v. JUSTEN LEE WHITMORE, Defendant.
This case is about contempt.
Father failed to pay child support. He was held in contempt. Father appealed because of insufficient evidence of the willful nature of his conduct. Father claimed that he did not agree with the support amount, and that if he paid, he would be homeless. The evidence found that he had VA benefits, a housing allowance, he was employed and leasing an apartment.