Mrs. Sprinkle worked for Dr. Johnson for 17 years; during the last four of those years, she had a romantic and sexual relationship with Dr. Johnson. Mrs. Sprinkle ultimately confessed the affair to her husband and left her job. The Sprinkles did not separate or divorce. Mr. Sprinkle sued Dr. Johnson for alienation of affection and criminal conversation; the complaint and summons were served on Dr. Johnson at his work address.
https://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.png00FamilyLawhttps://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.pngFamilyLaw2021-10-07 09:59:042021-10-07 09:59:04Case Law Update: Sprinkle v. Johnson (Due Process, Notice, Alienation of Affection)
Munoz v. Munoz, NC Court of Appeals, August 3, 2021 (Custody)
During the marriage, the parties preferred not to place the child in daycare, and so they relied upon family help to care for the child and nearly always had a family member living with them and assisting in care for the child. At the time mother and father separated, mother, who is a member of the U.S. Army, was anticipating a deployment to Iraq. Mother and father entered into a temporary custody order by consent, which vested primary physical custody in father and allowed father and the child to relocate to California. Father and the child then relocated to California, where they were living with father’s grandmother and his uncle; father’s grandmother was acting as a live-in
care provider while father worked. After father and the child relocated, father learned
that she would not be deployed and so filed a motion to set aside the consent order.
https://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.png00FamilyLawhttps://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.pngFamilyLaw2021-10-06 09:26:462021-10-06 09:26:46Case Law Update: Munoz v. Munoz (Custody)
Husband and wife resolved equitable distribution via a consent order. Pursuant to the terms of that order, husband retained the parties’ business and paid wife a distributive award of approximately $3,000,000. Alimony and child support were later heard by the trial court. Wife’s financial affidavit listed monthly expenses for herself and the children totaling approximately $18,000. The trial court found that some of the expenses were unreasonable but did not specify which expenses were unreasonable. Ultimately, the court found that the reasonable amount for monthly expenses for wife and the children was $13,677.56 and entered an order awarding wife $2,100 per month in alimony, $1,900 per month in child support, and $72,617 in support arrears. Wife appealed the alimony order.
https://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.png00FamilyLawhttps://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.pngFamilyLaw2021-09-30 14:31:402021-09-30 14:48:01Case Law Update: Putnam v. Putnam (Alimony)
All the divorce laws are still wrong. Nothing has changed in the past 30 days since my last blog post on child support. To be clear, the bonus and commission rules aren’t the only things wrong with child support. More to come on that in later posts.
I’m throwing out softballs to start. Please realize, too, that I’m purposefully taking an extreme approach. The things I write may, or may not, be my position if you see me in court or in mediation. Instead, these examples are meant to point out black holes in how things operate within our family law world.
Just kidding. However, since our Chair, Katie King, put up a constructive and positive blog post, I will try to be the antithesis this year as the Vice Chair. To that end, there’s a bunch of stuff we deal with on a daily basis that is problematic. This year is a good opportunity for me to vent and point out 10 of those little things (one per month or so) that drive me crazy about how things should be better. Perhaps there’s nothing groundbreaking, and if that’s the case, it should be easier to fix!
https://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.png00FamilyLawhttps://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.pngFamilyLaw2021-09-01 11:41:382021-09-01 11:41:38Why All The Divorce Laws Are Wrong . . . And Other Thoughts
The following is a hypothetical illustrating problems and interplay between pension jurisdiction and divorce for military servicepersons.
The Initial Problem
Lisa approached Tom. The time had come. It was the “D” word they’d been avoiding. No, not a new dog . . . Lisa wanted a divorce. Tom knew the divorce would be complex as Tom served in the Army Reserves for nearly 15 years. Why now? What about the children? What about the house they bought last year? Despite Tom’s many thoughts and issues with the divorce, he knew it was time to call a lawyer and determine the best path between two places: marriage and divorce.
Tom’s lawyer Bill, as with most lawyers, advised him to file an action against Lisa requesting the relief Tom wanted such as seeing his children on a regular basis and obtaining a reasonable division of assets. Bill and Tom did not know that they may have inadvertently decided an important issue regarding Tom’s retired pay by filing.
https://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.png00FamilyLawhttps://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.pngFamilyLaw2021-08-19 13:43:202021-08-19 13:43:20Be Careful What You Ask For: Pension Jurisdiction and Military Divorce
It is an honor to serve as your Section Chair for 2021-2022. Thank you to Mitchell Kelling for her leadership as Chair last year and for all those who served and continue to serve as committee chairs and in other leadership roles. And thank you to Cheyenne Merrigan, our Communities Manager with the NCBA.
https://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.png00FamilyLawhttps://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.pngFamilyLaw2021-07-19 16:45:102021-07-19 16:45:10A Message from the Chair
Each year, the Family Law Section is usually fortunate enough to have sufficient funds left over to make several donations. This year, the Council elected to make donations to the UNC School of Government in honor of Cheryl Howell and to the North Carolina Bar Foundation with the funds earmarked for Free Legal Answers.
The UNC School of Government, and specifically Cheryl Howell, is a valuable resource for family law attorneys. Cheryl Howell is a wealth of information and is always able to provide an answer when one is needed. North Carolina is lucky to have Cheryl, and the Council appreciates her devotion to family law. A donation of $500.00 was made in Cheryl’s name.
Father and mother have two children together. Father has three other minor children from previous relationships – two of those other children live with him. Mother is a W-2 employee and father is self-employed. In its findings regarding father’s income, the trial court noted that father’s business had significant expenses but failed to take those expenses into consideration in its calculation of income for child support purposes – instead, the trial court utilized father’s gross monthly business income as his income for child support purposes. Additionally, because father was only listed as the father on the birth certificate of one of the two children living with him, the trial court only gave father credit for that one child. Father appealed. Read more
https://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.png00FamilyLawhttps://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.pngFamilyLaw2021-06-23 09:13:572021-06-23 09:44:05Case Law Update: Child Support
DiPrima v. Vann, COA20-545, Court of Appeals of North Carolina, May 18, 2021
A sixteen-year-old plaintiff sought a 50C order against a seventeen-year-old defendant after the defendant intimidated and harassed her by following and touching her without her consent, threatening to kill or harm her if she stopped being his friend, threatening to shoot up their school, telling her he wanted to kill and torture two teachers, cutting himself in class in front of her, telling her he wanted to fight her parents, and telling her that he had researched how to make bombs and shoot up the school.
https://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.png00FamilyLawhttps://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.pngFamilyLaw2021-06-16 15:25:292021-06-16 15:25:29Case Law Update: AOC 50C Order