Catawba County ex rel. Rackley v. Loggins (Lawyers Weekly No. 010-061-17, 28 pp.) (Michael Morgan, J.) (Mark Martin, C.J., joined by Sam Ervin IV, J., concurring in the result only) Appealed from Catawba County District Court (Gregory Hayes, J.) ...

Tagged with: Child Support Modification

In re Frank (Lawyers Weekly No. 14-05-1013, 9 pp.) (Stephani Humrickhouse, J.) 12-06722-8; E.B.N.C. Holding: At the time the debtor and the lender entered into the deed of trust at issue, they were in agreement that the debtor would use ...

Tagged with: Modification

Mendieta v. Wave Energy Drink, LLC The defendant-borrower alleges that, several months after the parties executed several promissory notes, the plaintiff-lenders agreed to extend the notes’ due dates until “such time as [the borrower was] in the financial position to repay said loans.” Since the purported extension agreement came after the notes were executed, it could not be a condition precedent as argued by the borrower.

Tagged with: Contract extension Modification Promissory Notes

NRC Golf Course, LLC v. JMR Golf, LLC Eight months after entering into a lease and option to purchase a golf course, the parties modified the price term of the purchase option. Since there was no consideration for this modification (from $2,500,000 to “fair market value”), it was unenforceable.

Tagged with: Contract Golf Course Modification Real Property

Johnston County ex rel. Bugge v. Bugge. Although a defendant who requested child support modification was entitled to the presumption of a substantial change in circumstances, the presumption was rebutted by evidence that he intentionally left his job, thereby voluntarily depressing his income.

Tagged with: Domestic Relations Modification parent & child support

Weaver v. Thomas The trial court’s findings show that circumstances have changed since its original custody order in that the children have bonded with their new stepmother and the defendant-father has been more successful than the plaintiff-mother in dealing with their son’s anger issues. We affirm the trial court’s modification of custody, awarding primary physical custody to the father.

Tagged with: Changed Circumstances custody Domestic Relations Modification parent & child

McKinney v. McKinney Although the parties’ separation agreement only required the defendant-father to pay $2,250 per month in child support, for two years he paid $4,750 per month. He then unilaterally reduced his payment to $2,250 per month, demanded that the plaintiff-mother and the parties’ child move out of the house he had been providing for them, and terminated the lease on the car he had provided for them. The father’s refusal to increase his child support payments until the court ordered him to do supports the trial court’s finding that the father refused to provide adequate child support.

Tagged with: Attorney’s Fees Domestic Relations expenses expert witness Modification parent & child support

Wilson v. Wilson The separation agreement that was incorporated into the parties’ 1988 divorce judgment required the defendant-father to increase his child support payments whenever he received a raise or bonus; however, such automatic child support increases do not take into account all of the factors required to modify child support, such as the needs of the children. We reverse the trial court’s order requiring the father to pay $23,921 in past due child support.

Tagged with: Domestic Relations Modification parent & child support Unenforceable

Griffin v. Griffin Even though the mother’s planned move from Forsyth County to New Bern is a substantial change in circumstances, the trial court’s order does not indicate how this change affects the child’s welfare. We vacate the trial court’s order modifying custody and remand for further proceedings.

Tagged with: Changed Circumstances custody Domestic Relations Modification parent & child

Patten v. Werner. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding that the effects of substantial changes in circumstances on a minor child were self-evident, justifying a modification of a prior child custody order. We affirm the trial court's order modifying the prior custody order so as to grant primary physical custody to the defendant-father and secondary physical custody and liberal visitation to the plaintiff-mother.

Tagged with: Change in Circumstances Child Custody Domestic Relations Modification Onslow County