It’s National Celebrate Pro Bono Month! That’s right . . . you heard it here: it’s time to get your pro bono “on” if you haven’t already this year. Should every month be pro bono month? Absolutely! October is particularly great . . . why? Well, the leaves are changing, hot toddies by the campfire are in my future and everything you could ever imagine is pumpkin flavored. Get to the point, you say; I’m super important and don’t have time for your ramblings. OK, here you go!
Rule 6.1 of the North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct states that “every lawyer has a professional responsibility to provide legal services to those unable to pay.” Across the state, there is a great need for family law specific pro bono services. As a member of North Carolina Bar Association, you can register to volunteer virtually by signing up for North Carolina Free Legal Answers which is a web-based pro bono program for financially eligible users to post civil legal questions. Attorneys can sort and filter questions with many of the questions being family/divorce/custody related. Questions generally take attorneys 5 minutes or so to respond. It is easy. You can find more information about the program here.
Angarita v. Edwards, North Carolina Court of Appeals, August 3, 2021 (50C No Contact Order)
Plaintiff and defendant are neighbors. Over a period of several months, defendant engaged in a pattern of verbally aggressive behavior toward plaintiff and plaintiff’s family. Defendant accused plaintiff of breaking into her house, put a sign in her yard that said plaintiff is a dangerous criminal, sent threatening texts to plaintiff and his family, verbally harassed plaintiff and his family, told plaintiff that he and his family deserved to die and that she hoped someone killed them, and yelled racist remarks at plaintiff and his family. Plaintiff filed a 50C complaint against defendant. After a hearing, the trial court entered a 50C order in which it found that plaintiff has suffered unlawful conduct by defendant – followed by a short list of some of the behaviors – and ordering defendant to obtain a mental health assessment. The court later sua sponte amended the order to check a box in the decree that defendant shall cease stalking plaintiff. Defendant appealed.
https://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.png00FamilyLawhttps://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.pngFamilyLaw2021-10-15 09:54:422021-10-15 09:54:42Case Law Update: Angarita v. Edwards (50C No Contact Order)
Nielson v. Schmoke, North Carolina Court of Appeals, August 3, 2021 (Enforcement of Foreign Judgments)
Pursuant to a Michigan divorce judgment, entered in December 2003, and a supplemental judgment, entered in October 2009, husband was to pay to wife a total of $1,323,096.31. In 2013, pursuant to the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (UEFJA), wife enrolled the two Michigan judgments, along with supporting affidavits, and commenced an action in North Carolina. Husband filed a motion to strike and defenses to enforcement of the judgments. The trial court found wife had met the requirements of the UEFJA, found that the Michigan judgments were entitled to full faith and credit in North Carolina, and entered a North Carolina judgment against husband in the amount of $1,323,096.31.
https://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.png00FamilyLawhttps://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.pngFamilyLaw2021-10-13 10:56:152021-10-13 11:01:33Case Law Update: Nielson v. Schmoke (Enforcement of Foreign Judgments)
Mrs. Sprinkle worked for Dr. Johnson for 17 years; during the last four of those years, she had a romantic and sexual relationship with Dr. Johnson. Mrs. Sprinkle ultimately confessed the affair to her husband and left her job. The Sprinkles did not separate or divorce. Mr. Sprinkle sued Dr. Johnson for alienation of affection and criminal conversation; the complaint and summons were served on Dr. Johnson at his work address.
https://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.png00FamilyLawhttps://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.pngFamilyLaw2021-10-07 09:59:042021-10-07 09:59:04Case Law Update: Sprinkle v. Johnson (Due Process, Notice, Alienation of Affection)
Munoz v. Munoz, NC Court of Appeals, August 3, 2021 (Custody)
During the marriage, the parties preferred not to place the child in daycare, and so they relied upon family help to care for the child and nearly always had a family member living with them and assisting in care for the child. At the time mother and father separated, mother, who is a member of the U.S. Army, was anticipating a deployment to Iraq. Mother and father entered into a temporary custody order by consent, which vested primary physical custody in father and allowed father and the child to relocate to California. Father and the child then relocated to California, where they were living with father’s grandmother and his uncle; father’s grandmother was acting as a live-in
care provider while father worked. After father and the child relocated, father learned
that she would not be deployed and so filed a motion to set aside the consent order.
https://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.png00FamilyLawhttps://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.pngFamilyLaw2021-10-06 09:26:462021-10-06 09:26:46Case Law Update: Munoz v. Munoz (Custody)
Husband and wife resolved equitable distribution via a consent order. Pursuant to the terms of that order, husband retained the parties’ business and paid wife a distributive award of approximately $3,000,000. Alimony and child support were later heard by the trial court. Wife’s financial affidavit listed monthly expenses for herself and the children totaling approximately $18,000. The trial court found that some of the expenses were unreasonable but did not specify which expenses were unreasonable. Ultimately, the court found that the reasonable amount for monthly expenses for wife and the children was $13,677.56 and entered an order awarding wife $2,100 per month in alimony, $1,900 per month in child support, and $72,617 in support arrears. Wife appealed the alimony order.
https://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.png00FamilyLawhttps://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.pngFamilyLaw2021-09-30 14:31:402021-09-30 14:48:01Case Law Update: Putnam v. Putnam (Alimony)
All the divorce laws are still wrong. Nothing has changed in the past 30 days since my last blog post on child support. To be clear, the bonus and commission rules aren’t the only things wrong with child support. More to come on that in later posts.
I’m throwing out softballs to start. Please realize, too, that I’m purposefully taking an extreme approach. The things I write may, or may not, be my position if you see me in court or in mediation. Instead, these examples are meant to point out black holes in how things operate within our family law world.
Just kidding. However, since our Chair, Katie King, put up a constructive and positive blog post, I will try to be the antithesis this year as the Vice Chair. To that end, there’s a bunch of stuff we deal with on a daily basis that is problematic. This year is a good opportunity for me to vent and point out 10 of those little things (one per month or so) that drive me crazy about how things should be better. Perhaps there’s nothing groundbreaking, and if that’s the case, it should be easier to fix!
https://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.png00FamilyLawhttps://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.pngFamilyLaw2021-09-01 11:41:382021-09-01 11:41:38Why All The Divorce Laws Are Wrong . . . And Other Thoughts
The following is a hypothetical illustrating problems and interplay between pension jurisdiction and divorce for military servicepersons.
The Initial Problem
Lisa approached Tom. The time had come. It was the “D” word they’d been avoiding. No, not a new dog . . . Lisa wanted a divorce. Tom knew the divorce would be complex as Tom served in the Army Reserves for nearly 15 years. Why now? What about the children? What about the house they bought last year? Despite Tom’s many thoughts and issues with the divorce, he knew it was time to call a lawyer and determine the best path between two places: marriage and divorce.
Tom’s lawyer Bill, as with most lawyers, advised him to file an action against Lisa requesting the relief Tom wanted such as seeing his children on a regular basis and obtaining a reasonable division of assets. Bill and Tom did not know that they may have inadvertently decided an important issue regarding Tom’s retired pay by filing.
https://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.png00FamilyLawhttps://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.pngFamilyLaw2021-08-19 13:43:202021-08-19 13:43:20Be Careful What You Ask For: Pension Jurisdiction and Military Divorce
It is an honor to serve as your Section Chair for 2021-2022. Thank you to Mitchell Kelling for her leadership as Chair last year and for all those who served and continue to serve as committee chairs and in other leadership roles. And thank you to Cheyenne Merrigan, our Communities Manager with the NCBA.
https://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.png00FamilyLawhttps://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.pngFamilyLaw2021-07-19 16:45:102021-07-19 16:45:10A Message from the Chair
By 
By 
By 
By 
By 
By