By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: April 11,2012
MacMillan v. MacMillan A decedent’s first wife has stated a claim for a constructive trust against the decedent’s widow when the first wife alleges that the decedent was under court order to leave her $38,000 but he arranged his finances so that his widow received the money instead.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: April 11,2012
Quinn v. Quinn The parties’ separation agreement said the plaintiff-father would “be responsible for the payment of any and all expenses necessary for the education of either of the minor children should they desire to attend a school beyond high school, to include college, technical or trade school, said expenses to include tuition, books and room and board.” The parties’ son came back to North Carolina to live in his maternal grandmother’s home after his Chicago music career stalled, and he signed up for four hours of online classes at a community college; the father was not required to pay the $800 room and board charged by the maternal grandmother. The parties’ daughter is attending college full-time, but she is also married with a mortgage; the father was not required to pay her mortgage and other household expenses.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: March 26,2012
Jerkins v. Warren In support of its award of primary physical custody to the plaintiff-father and liberal visitation to the defendant-mother, the trial court found merely that both parties “are fit and proper persons for the roles assigned herein” and that “this order is in the best interest of the minor child.” These findings do not allow us to determine whether the trial court property awarded primary physical custody of the parties’ child to the father.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: March 20,2012
Taylor v. Taylor In its order denying alimony to a disabled husband, the trial court found that the husband had been able to maintain his standard of living despite his disability. However, the trial court also found that the husband’s private-insurance disability benefits would cease when he turned 65; moreover, the source of some of the husband’s income – the couple’s pharmacy – was distributed to the wife in the court’s equitable distribution order. The trial court should have made findings as to whether the husband would continue to be able to maintain his standard of living.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: March 20,2012
State ex rel. Davis v. McCommons A mother was receiving public assistance from Union County Child Support Enforcement for the support and maintenance of her minor child. Therefore, the State of North Carolina – through Union County Child Support Enforcement – had standing to institute proceedings against defendant as the responsible parent under G.S. Art. 9, Chap. 110.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: March 15,2012
Gentry v. Gentry Where neither party asked for joint custody, and where the trial court found the parties’ animosity toward each other and their anger issues made shared custody inadvisable, the trial court did not err when it awarded sole custody to one parent rather than awarding joint custody to both.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: February 28,2012
Dickason v. Hayes Even if acrimony and conflict between the parties were not new when the plaintiff-father moved for a custody modification, the defendant-mother did not challenge the trial court’s finding that she failed to work with the father to adjust his visitation to accommodate their child’s school schedule.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: February 16,2012
Kenton v. Kenton Even though the parties consented to the domestic violence protective order and to the DVPO’s lack of findings and conclusions, Bryant v. Williams, 161 N.C. App. 444, 588 S.E.2d 506 (2003), requires findings of fact and conclusions of law establishing that defendant committed an act of domestic violence.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: February 16,2012
Lane v. Lane Even though the plaintiff-wife now contends that there was a second mortgage on the marital residence that was used to buy an automobile, the parties stipulated in the pretrial order that the fair market value of this vehicle was $6,800 and that it was to be distributed to the wife, but the parties specifically did not stipulate as to whether there was a lien on the vehicle. Where the parties entered into an unequivocal stipulation that the mortgage on the residence was “now paid and no liens on residence,” the wife is bound by her stipulation and cannot disavow it on appeal.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: February 14,2012
Callanan v. Walsh Even though, on a prior appeal, this court rejected the trial court’s classification of a $450,000 matter as a marital debt, the trial court’s decree that plaintiff pay to defendant a distributive award of $225,000 was not affected.
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
State v. Squires When a state trooper saw a pickup truck on the side of the road after midnight and stopped to see if any assistance was needed, he was not required to leave after a person outside the truck told him everything was okay. The trooper did not impermissibly extend the stop when he checked on the driver of the vehicle.
State v. Rouse Even though, in his opening and closing statements, defense counsel referred to the arresting officers as “very good officers,” counsel did so in the context of arguing that everyone makes mistakes. Counsel could have reasonably made a tactical decision to refrain from challenging the officers’ general professionalism and competence, while still encouraging the jury to find that the officers arrested defendant on May 23, 2010 as a result of their inadvertent mistakes.
Robinson v. North Carolina Department of Correction Where plaintiff testified that, all the way around his wrist, there were “teeth marks” from too-tight handcuffs and that his wrist was bruised and swollen, but where a drawing plaintiff made to document his injuries indicated that only his left finger and thumb were swollen with no indication of bruising, discoloration, a cut or “teeth marks” laterally around his wrist, the evidence supports the Industrial Commission’s finding that plaintiff’s drawing was inconsistent with his testimony regarding his injuries.
Pickney v. Department of Transportation Even though the parties’ settlement agreement provided that plaintiff could “request a job reallocation or pay grade increase” and that defendant would “cooperate with such a request,” the settlement agreement did not provide plaintiff with any guarantee that he would actually receive a job reallocation or pay grade increase upon request. Even if plaintiff proved that defendant breached the settlement agreement by failing to cooperate with his request for a second job reallocation, plaintiff’s evidence provided no basis upon which the trial court could have properly calculated damages.
