By Ketan P. Soni 

Rule 60 Case | Interlocutory Case | Contempt Case

Jackson V. Jackson (now Clelland): Rule 60 v. Appeal

Sampson County – 2020

Tldr: Don’t use Rule 60 to correct erroneous orders. Appeal instead; otherwise, you’ll lose.

Mom and Dad had a custody trial. The trial court ordered that:

Plaintiff shall reimburse Defendant for travel to and from preschool and school and shall receive a credit for any trips he has to make to Fayetteville for custody exchanges and return at the same rate of reimbursement. The reimbursement rate shall be the rate given to State Employees for travel and the mileage will be from [an address] Street to the preschool or school or lesser mileage if Defendant moves her residence closer to the schools.”

Read more

By Russel B. Duckworth

During an economic recession, the best tool for valuing a business is a discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis. A DCF analysis is the only valuation method that allows a financial expert to develop customized financial projections for the business that account for both the economic downturn and the eventual recovery. This article describes the DCF analysis. I also address a common misunderstanding about whether it is legally permissible to use financial projections to value a business in an equitable distribution case. As I explain, using financial projections to value a business does not run afoul of the directive found in Poore to value business goodwill “by taking into account past results, and not the postmarital efforts of the professional spouse[.]” Poore v. Poore, 75 N.C.App. 414, 421 (1985). Using a DCF analysis to value a business on the basis of its projected income is perfectly consistent with North Carolina law, as long as the projections account for a reasonable compensation for the business owner spouse.

Read more

By Rebecca K. Watts

Richter v. Richter, decided COA June 2, 2020 (equitable distribution, classification of life insurance proceeds)

During the time Husband and Wife were married to each other, Husband’s ex-wife died. Husband was beneficiary of a life insurance policy that ex-wife had maintained. During the marriage of Husband and Wife, some of the life insurance proceeds were used to make purchases. In the equitable distribution proceeding, Wife claimed the life insurance proceeds and the items purchased with it were marital property of Husband and Wife. Husband claimed it was all separate property. The trial court classified the proceeds and the items purchased with the proceeds as Husband’s separate property. Wife appealed.

Read more

By Rebecca K. Watts

Routten v. Routten, N.C. Supreme Court, decided June 5, 2020 (custody, denial of visitation)

After finding that visitation with Mother would not be in the children’s best interest, the trial court awarded sole physical custody to Father, denied visitation to Mother, and allowed Father to “permit custodial time between the children and [Mother] within his sole discretion.” Mother appealed.

The Court of Appeals held that before applying a best interest test to deny custodial and visitation rights to a parent, the trial court must (1) make a written finding of fact that that parent is “unfit or has engaged in conduct inconsistent with is protected status as parent” and (2) “make those findings based upon clear, cogent, and convincing evidence.” In reaching this determination, the Court of Appeals relied upon the holding in Moore v. Moore, 160 N.C. App. 569 (2003), in which the Court of Appeals held that “in a custody dispute between a child’s natural or adoptive parents, absent a finding that the parents are (i) unfit or (ii) have neglected the welfare of their children, the constitutionally protected paramount right of parents to custody, care and control of their children must prevail.” The Court in Moore based its decision upon the holding in Petersen v. Rogers, 337 N.C. 397 (1994). In her dissent, Judge Inman reasoned that the statute clearly allowed a denial of visitation based upon a best interest determination alone and that Moore had been wrongfully decided and disavowed, and was not controlling.

Read more

By Afi Johnson-Parris 

When I began practicing family law as a solo practitioner, short on cash and shorter on clients, I polled several colleagues for advice on which reference materials were essential. I had no budget for extras. Nearly everyone I spoke to said, “You’ve got to have Lee’s Family Law.” For many years, Lee’s Family Law was the seminal text on family law in North Carolina. Many a time in court or conversation, lawyers or judges would use the phrase, “well, Lee’s says . . .” when expounding on some area of the law. I knew the current author of the 5th edition was Dean Emerita Suzanne Reynolds, so I never gave much thought to the actual man behind the text until I received a call from Section member Carolyn Ingram.

Read more