By
Ketan Soni
Thanks for reading this post and for allowing me to be your Chair this year. Don’t sit on me too hard, please! Our esteemed and more likeable Vice Chair is Jill Jackson.
If you’d rather not go through this entire post, there is a tl;dr version at the bottom.
After reading this post, ask yourself:
“What’s stopping me from contributing to the success of our section?”
Ketan Soni
Carolyn Krueger-Andes
By Ketan Soni and Carolyn “Lynn” Krueger-Andes
Here are the high level results from our last post, as far as frequently missed questions:
1. Which of the following are acceptable in moving forward with an absolute divorce? (select all that apply) 3 / 22
2. What prior names may a woman resume upon obtaining an Absolute Divorce? (select all that apply) 2 / 22
3. Which of the following are the effects of an Absolute Divorce? 10 / 22
Barus v. Coffey, January 4, 2022, Court of Appeals of North Carolina, Rule 12(b)(6) and custody modification
The trial court entered a permanent order in 2014 that awarded primary custody to father during the school year and shared custody during the summer months. This order also determined that each party should be financially responsible for the children while in his or her respective care and that the parties should bear equal responsibility for uninsured medical expenses, but that neither would pay support to the other. In 2017, father filed a motion to modify custody, medical coverage, and child support. The trial court heard the 2017 motions in 2018. In May 2019, the court entered its order regarding modification of custody, contempt, and attorney fees. Although the 2019 order in its caption did not mention child support, the body of the order itself indicated that the trial court was also addressing father’s motion to modify child support and in the decree of that order, the trial court denied the motions to modify the 2014 order in any way.
Ketan Soni
Carolyn Krueger-Andes
By Ketan Soni and Carolyn “Lynn” Krueger-Andes
Being Special(ist)
Here are the results from our last post (51 responses):
| Question # | % Correct Answers |
|
1 |
34% |
|
2 |
84% |
|
3 |
46.9% |
|
4 |
16% (YES, 16%) |
|
5 |
12% |
|
6 |
44.9% |
|
7 |
58% |
|
8 |
68% |
|
9 |
67.3% |
|
10 |
72% |
Wadsworth v. Wadsworth, Court of Appeals of North Carolina, December 21, 2021 (Security For Child Support, Alimony)
The trial court entered a child support and alimony order. The order established a $1,900.00 a month, 20-year term alimony obligation; a prospective monthly child support obligation; and an $18,026.75 child support arrearage. The court ordered husband to maintain a life insurance policy with a $550,000.00 death benefit – the purpose being to secure the $18,026.75 child support arrearage and the $456,000.00 in alimony that would be paid over the total alimony term. Husband appealed.
Hirschler v. Hirschler, Court of Appeals of North Carolina, December 21, 2021 (Civil and Criminal Contempt)
A custody order granted primary custody to mother and visitation to father, including visitation from June 1 through July 10 each year in Florida. When the parties’ daughter was 16, she informed her parents that she did not want to return to mother at the end of father’s summer visitation period. Father encouraged the child to return but would not forcibly put the child in the car and drive her back to Charlotte. Mother traveled to Florida to talk with the child about coming home. After that discussion, mother acquiesced to the child’s request that she continue to stay in Florida with father. Mother later changed her mind and filed a criminal contempt motion against father. The allegations in her motion spoke only to criminal contempt and in her prayer for relief she asked only for criminal contempt. A show cause order was entered, directing father to appear and show cause why he should not be held in criminal contempt. At the start of the contempt hearing, attorneys for both sides confirmed with the judge that this was to be a criminal contempt hearing and that mother was seeking only criminal contempt. Father exercised his right not to testify in the criminal contempt proceeding.
Ketan Soni
Carolyn Krueger-Andes
By Ketan Soni and Carolyn Krueger-Andes
Here are the results from our last post (22 responses):
| Question # | % Correct Answers |
|
1 |
41% |
|
2 |
47% |
|
3 |
28.6% |
|
4 |
38% |
|
5 |
33% |
|
6 |
28.6% |
|
7 |
76.2% |
|
8 |
23.8% |
|
9 |
90.5% |
|
10 |
81% |
Meredith Parker
Ryan Schultz
By Meredith Parker and Ryan Schultz
Introducing:
Isn’t There an Expert for That? (2022 Family Law Intensive Program)
Thursday and Friday, January 27-28, 2022
Attention all Family Law Specialists and Family Law Practitioners with 8+ years of practice! Your deadline to register for the 2022 Family Law Intensive Program is fast approaching – register today to secure your spot for the program.
By Ketan Soni
I took a hiatus from all the wrong laws. Two main reasons: I wanted to give you all a break from my rambling, and I was paralyzed in figuring out which of the many aspects of the wrong laws I was going to talk about next.
Trying to figure that out was like trying to reach the end of a Moebius strip.
Here are the previous blog posts:
In any event, all the divorce laws are still wrong. A few more people responded to my last post on Equitable Distribution, and I was mostly right. That’s 3-0 “ish.”
Ketan Soni
Carolyn Krueger-Andes
By Ketan Soni and Carolyn Krueger-Andes
We’re all busy all the time. Some of you have dreams of being special. Some of you have dreams of being a specialist. The hurdle to that dream is the nightmare of the specialist exam.
We are here to help you add bunny ears and fuzzy slippers to that nightmare so you can accomplish your specialist dreams! Also: If you don’t care about becoming a specialist, our hope is to raise our collective abilities as family lawyers with this ongoing series.
By