Domestic Relations – Child Support – Mandate of the North Carolina Court of Appeals

The trial court’s findings support its determination of child support.

We affirmed the trial court’s orders.

Father appealed from an order denying his motion to dismiss and motion for protective order; motion to quash/amend subpoena”; a sanctions order; an order for attorneys’ fees; and an order modifying child support” (2023 Child Support Order). Because the trial court complied with this Court’s mandate in Kincheloe I, filed in June 2021, as well as Rule 63 of our North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, the trial court did not err as a matter of law in holding a new hearing on all issues.

Father’s primary argument on appeal was that the trial court did not comply with this Court’s mandate in Kincheloe I, and on remand, it was required to enter an order for modification of child support based only on evidence presented during the 2018 child support hearing. Father argued the trial court erred by making findings of fact and conclusions of law based on “inadmissible” evidence in both the order denying motion to dismiss and the 2023 Child Support Order. Father contended this Court did not anticipate the lower court’s consideration of evidence pertaining to any period beginning after the 2019 Child Support Order was entered or even after the underlying evidentiary hearings concluded in September 2018. In its 2023 Child Support Order, the court calculated the parties’ child support obligations and arrearages based on evidence of the parties’ incomes and expenses between 2017 and 2022. According to Father, the trial court violated this Court’s mandate to correct the 2019 Child Support Order. He also asserted that “[i]n [c]onclusion of [l]aw, the trial court went beyond the scope of what was to be considered on remand in order to correct the deficiencies in the order.” We disagreed.

In Kincheloe I, we reversed and remanded the trial court’s 2019 Child Support Order for entry of a new order that complies with North Carolina General Statute [Section] 50-13.4. Following remand, in the trial court’s March 2022 order denying motion to dismiss, the court concluded it “ha[d] the authority to conduct a hearing and take evidence on events and factual changes that ha[d] occurred since entry of the original, reversed [2019 Child Support Order]” in considering the new child support order. In the 2023 Child Support Order, the court correctly concluded that after four years of litigation on the 2017 motion to modify, it was obligated “to take evidence during the hearing on remand to determine the current reasonable needs of the minor children for maintenance and support and the relative ability of the parties to provide support and to enter an order that addresses the current circumstances.”

The trial court did not violate this Court’s mandate in Kincheloe I or abuse its discretion under Rule 63 by holding a new evidentiary hearing on remand. The trial court’s findings of fact support its conclusions of law, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in establishing Father’s child support obligation.

Affirmed.

Kincheloe v. Kincheloe (Lawyers’ Weekly No. 011-269-25, 62 pp.) (Donna Stroud, J.) Appealed from Mecklenburg County District Court (Elizabeth T. Trosch, J.) James, McElroy & Diehl, P.A., by Preston O. Odom, III, Haley E. White, and Kristin J. Rempe, for plaintiff-appellee. Myers Law Firm, PLLC, by Matthew R. Myers, for defendant-appellant. North Carolina Court of Appeals