To all the toys I’ve loved before

Appellate judges are often called upon to review cases in which a person’s freedom, or livelihood, or constitutional rights may hang in the balance. And then there’s also this stuff: The North Carolina Court of Appeals recently handed down an opinion in a spat over who should get custody of a grown man’s toy cars.

James Crews had appealed an order entered in Davidson County District Court enforcing a separation agreement he had entered into with his now ex-wife, Lisa. Among other things, Crews argued that Lisa “did not perform her obligations under the contract.”

Specifically, Crews contended that the trial court erred by finding that his ex-wife “did not materially breach the parties’ separation agreement by failing to return [his] one-of-a-kind Ferrari model cars.” (Sidebar has never before felt such rich and deep multitudes of subtext while reading the simple notation, “Original in all caps.”)

The separation agreement addressed the division of “miscellaneous tangible property” and provided that Crews would receive things like a four-wheeler and a golf cart, but it didn’t specifically mention the toy—sorry, model, cars, which is the sort of real exception-that-proves-the rule type stuff you learned about in law school.

Judge Donna Stroud, who remains the all-time undisputed champion of penning opinions that get written up by Sidebar, suggested that this was an issue that probably should have been addressed before the parties signed the agreement.

“The ‘one-of-a-kind Ferrari model cars’ Husband claims are worth $22,500 were not mentioned in the Agreement. If the cars were so important that they ‘defeat the purpose of the’ Agreement as Husband contends, they should have been specifically listed; otherwise, Wife could have refused to allow Husband to have the cars,” Stroud wrote.

Judge Phil Berger dissented from a different portion of the ruling, arguing that the trial court had erred by failing to make any findings of fact “whatsoever” regarding Crews’ ability to pay alimony. Sidebar will just say that many people in this country pay less than $22,500 for their actual automobile that they use to take their kids to school and day care and whatnot, and if you claim to be the rightful owner of $22,500 worth of toy—sorry, model, cars, then you most definitely have the ability to pay alimony, case closed, fact found.

Ultimately there’s a happy ending here, though. Although the trial court determined that Lisa did not breach the separation agreement by failing to return the model cars, it did ultimately order her to give them back to Crews.

So one could say that the cars are once again in … Crews’ control.

D.D.