Angell v. Faison (Lawyers Weekly No. 14-05-0971, 14 pp.) (Stephani Humrickhouse, J.) 13-00165-8; E.B.N.C. Holding: On the petition date, the chain of title for each of the real properties at issue contained a notice of lis pendens that the debtor had filed in connection with the equitable distribution proceeding between her and her ex-husband. Therefore, […]
Green v. Green (Lawyers Weekly No. 14-07-0936, 33 pp.) (Donna Stroud, J.) Appealed from Nash County District Court (John Covolo, J.) N.C. App. Holding: This equitable distribution action was delayed well beyond the timelines contemplated by our statutes and the applicable local rules; furthermore, there are no certificates of service on defendant as to several […]
Callanan v. Walsh In their divorce/equitable distribution case, the parties invoked the district court’s jurisdiction to decide matters related to their premarital agreement. Therefore, the superior court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate plaintiff’s claim that defendant breached the premarital agreement.
Ward v. Ward A voluntary dismissal by one party does not impede the other party from pursuing an independent equitable distribution claim.
Gould v. Gould Property given to one spouse by that spouse’s parents should not be included as marital property for purposes of equitable distribution.
Domestic Relations – Alimony – Supporting Spouse – Equitable Distribution – Unequal Division – Discovery
Rochelle v. Rochelle The defendant-husband failed to comply with the trial court’s order compelling discovery, and the husband does not challenge the following finding of fact: “Because Defendant’s cash deposits are always more than enough to cover his fluctuating monthly expenses, it can be inferred that there is additional cash elsewhere to be able to cover additional expenses, su[...]
Domestic Relations – Civil Practice – Subject Matter Jurisdiction — Equitable Distribution – Military Pension – CRSC Election – First Impression
Hillard v. Hillard After an equitable distribution order awarded the defendant-wife half of the plaintiff-husband’s military pension, the husband unilaterally elected to receive combat-related special compensation (CRSC) instead of his pension. Although federal law preempts state law with regard to CRSC and such payments cannot be classified as marital property subject to equitable dist[...]
Peltzer v. Peltzer Even though the equitable distribution order does not explicitly state what percentage of the marital estate is distributed to which party, the unchallenged findings and a little math show that the defendant-husband was awarded 55 percent of the marital estate, rather than the 20 percent he claims to have been awarded.
Civil Practice – Subject Matter Jurisdiction – Domestic Relations – Equitable Distribution – Corporate – Stock Redemption Agreement – Tort/Negligence
Whitworth v. Estate of Whitworth Even though plaintiff’s equitable distribution action is no longer pending, her claims that rest on allegations of intrinsic fraud must be brought in district court; however, her claims of breach of fiduciary duty, constructive fraud, and RICO violations against her daughter-in-law and the estate of her late son may be brought in superior court.
Domestic Relations – Equitable Distribution – Marital Debt – Credibility – Alimony – Amount & Duration
Ritchie v. Ritchie Even though the defendant-husband presented evidence that he made $94,929 in post-separation payments towards marital debts, it was within the trial court’s province to believe or disbelieve the husband’s evidence.
Domestic Relations – Equitable Distribution — Civil Practice – Contempt – Failure to Pay Debts – Settlement
Kinney v. Kinney A plaintiff-husband was in contempt of an order distributing marital property when he was ordered to pay certain debts in full and to hold the defendant-wife harmless on account of those debts but instead he negotiated a settlement of the debts for less than the full amount due.
Domestic Relations – Equitable Distribution – Classification & Valuation — Husband’s Businesses – Post-Separation Distributions – Post-Separation Diminution in Value
Binder v. Binder The trial court found that the diminution in value of one of the defendant-husband’s businesses was only “partly passive” and was partly due to the husband’s actions. These findings do not support the trial court’s conclusion that the entire diminution in value should be classified as divisible.
- Teen charged as juvenile in fatal stabbing at school
- Star’s handwritten will used to distribute real estate
- Families offer to settle Jones’ $1.5B legal debt
- Stephanie Salinas: Finding her niche as a paralegal
- UNC shooting suspect found unfit for trial
- Property case could have widespread legal implications
- Celebs, politicians face Adult Survivors Act lawsuits
- Despite problems, eCourts moves ahead
- SCOTUS to resolve opioid settlement issue
- Killer among four found dead at homeless camp
- Court: Georgia can elect utility panel statewide
- DC homicides rise, ‘closure rate’ falls
- Name game can end up being blame game
- Stericycle decision forces evaluation of policies, practices
- Are workplace DEI policies still legal after SCOTUS decisions?
- N.C. justices to decide many interesting cases
- Amotion sees resurgence after almost a decade
- The flip side of generative AI in law and how to address it
- The fight for equal educational opportunity continues
- Court’s term was rough on big business
- Ex-president, bar association have made their choice
- Ruling sharpens boundaries in attorney-client privilege
- Lawyers Weekly debuts new and improved web experience
- US Supreme Court bites back at parody’s use of the First Amendment