By ericahampton
Published: May 15,2013
Odugba v. Odugba Where, in many of its findings of fact, the trial court merely recites conflicting witness testimony on key issues without making its own determination, the trial court’s findings of fact do not support its award of sole legal and physical custody to the plaintiff-mother.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: May 15,2013
Bledsoe v. Bledsoe Disregarding those findings of fact which merely recite evidence, the trial court’s remaining findings (that the plaintiff-father attempted to enforce the terms of a 2009 custody order, that the father takes his son to his after-school practices, that the son is old enough to pursue appropriate activities of his own choosing, and that the father’s motives for enforcing his visitation rights are suspect) do not support a conclusion that a substantial change of circumstances affecting the minor child has occurred.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: May 8,2013
In re A.K.D. The parties’ attempted stipulation to a conclusion of law – that the respondent-father had willfully abandoned the children for six months within the meaning of G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(7) – was ineffective, especially since the father never stipulated that his failure to see the children was willful.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: May 7,2013
Woodring v. Woodring Where a June 14, 2010 custody order did not address the plaintiff-father’s ongoing visitation and did not explicitly address legal custody, it did not determine all the issues between the parties;
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: April 23,2013
Congdon v. Congdon Where the plaintiff-wife presented evidence that she inherited the funds in two bank accounts from her grandfather and always maintained the funds in accounts held solely in her name, the wife’s evidence supported the trial court’s classification of the funds as the wife’s separate property
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: April 16,2013
Little v. Little There was no indication that plaintiff’s doctor was unavailable to testify, plaintiff’s cervical strain diagnosis does not fall within any of the hearsay exceptions in N.C. R. Evid.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: April 3,2013
Reeder v. Carter Even though the parties’ separation agreement says they are entitled to enforce it by specific performance, parties may not contract around an established legal standard. The specific performance clause in the separation agreement does not negate plaintiff’s burden of proving the equitable requirements for specific performance
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: April 3,2013
In re L.C.R. Even though the trial court converted a neglect case into a child custody case when it awarded custody to the petitioner-grandparents, the custody order was still a “court order” within the meaning of In re A.C.F., 176 N.C. App. 520, 626 S.E.2d 729 (2006). Considering the order in the neglect case – giving DSS custody of the children – and the order in the custody case – giving the grandparents custody of the children, the children were in an out-of-home placement for well over 12 months prior to the filing of the termination petition
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: March 26,2013
Williard v. Williard Even though plaintiff contends that, every time she wanted to pursue her equitable distribution or child support claims, defendant would threaten to seek custody of their children, this did not excuse plaintiff’s delay in pursuing equitable distribution for nearly eight years after the case was administratively closed.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: March 15,2013
Baines v. Baines Plaintiff’s brother came to live with him; the brother had a history of drug abuse and a criminal history from crimes committed in support of his drug addiction, he was on probation at the time he went to live with plaintiff, and he was arrested for a probation violation but was released to reside with plaintiff. Nevertheless, the defendant-mother willfully violated the consent visitation order when she refused to allow visitation and unilaterally imposed extra conditions on plaintiff’s exercise of his visitation rights.
NC Lawyers Weekly keeps you connected with the latest legal news, Daily Practice and Breaking
News alerts.
Sign up for NC Lawyers Weekly email alerts
Bartlett v. Wayne County Board of Education Plaintiffs contend that the majority of eyewitnesses in this case testified that the responding officer’s diagram depicting the accident scene was accurate, that the diagram demonstrates plaintiffs’ “van had to have been almost directly in front of the bus at the time [the bus driver] started her turn,” and that this evidence conclusively established that the bus driver failed to yield the right-of-way to plaintiffs’ van.
Fidelity Bank v. North Carolina Department of Revenue Even though the N.C. Revenue Act uses the Internal Revenue Code to determine state net income, and even though the Code treats “market discount income” on U.S. Treasury bonds as interest for purposes of the Code, under the N.C. Revenue Act market discount income on U.S. Treasury bonds is treated as income rather than interest.
Apex Tool Group, LLC v. Ingersoll-Rand Co. Neither plaintiff nor the individual defendants are Texas residents; nevertheless, each of the individual defendants’ employment agreements includes an unambiguous and mandatory forum selection clause, which says any lawsuit involving the agreement must be brought in Harris County, Texas. The employment agreements were entered into by plaintiff’s predecessor and the individual defendants, who apparently did not live in Texas when they entered into the contracts and thus apparently anticipated interstate travel in the event of a trial.
