By Rebecca K. Watts 

Hamdan v. Freitekh, decided May 19, 2020

During the marriage, Mother and the children lived in Israel, while Father lived in Palestine.  Mother and the children moved to North Carolina without advance notice to Father—Mother alleged that the move was due to domestic violence issues and to her concern that Father was a member of a radical Islamic group. When Father learned of Mother’s intention to move to the United States, he instituted an action with the Shar’ia Court of Jerusalem in an effort to prevent Mother and the children from moving to the United States (by the time he filed his action, Mother and the children had already moved). The Shar’ia Court issued a “provisional order” providing that the children would live with Mother in Israel during the week and with Father in Palestine on the weekends. The order was served on Mother at her address in Jerusalem (after she had moved to North Carolina). When Mother did not appear in Court after that, the Shar’ia Court entered a final custody order by default.

Read more

By Rebecca K. Watts 

Quackenbush v. Groat, COA19-415, decided May 5, 2020 (DVPO)

Plaintiff filed a complaint for domestic violence protective order, to which she attached 12 pages of detailed allegations against Defendant. At the hearing, Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. Defendant argued that the Court of Appeals decision in Martin v. Martin dictated a certain level of specificity in the pleadings, and that the pleading here failed because the attached pages were not referenced in the form complaint. Defendant did not argue that he did not receive the attachment pages or that he was unable to respond to the allegations (he had, in fact, filed an answer in which he responded to the allegations)—he simply argued that because the form complaint itself did not include language such as “see attached,” there was no way to tell whether the attachments were indeed part of the verified pleading. The trial court determined that based upon the Martin decision, plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed because plaintiff’s allegations were not sufficiently specific to afford defendant due process. Plaintiff appealed.

Read more

By Rebecca K. Watts

Best v. Staton, COA19-638, May 5, 2020

Prior to the parties’ separation, Wife filed a complaint for divorce from bed and board and equitable distribution. Husband filed an answer to the complaint and a notice of “intent to file for equitable distribution.” In his prayer for relief, Husband asked that he “be allowed to file for equitable distribution upon separation of the parties.” The parties then separated, and after separation, Husband filed what he captioned as an “amended counterclaim for equitable distribution” and asserted his equitable distribution claim. Wife then filed a motion asking that the trial court dismiss both parties’ equitable distribution claims. Husband filed a motion seeking dismissal of Wife’s equitable distribution claim. The trial court dismissed Wife’s claim, finding that Wife’s claim was asserted prior to the date of separation. The trial court did not dismiss Husband’s equitable distribution claim. In denying dismissal of Husband’s equitable distribution claim, the court found that Husband’s notice of intent to file for equitable distribution was not a counterclaim for equitable distribution and so the “amended counterclaim” for equitable distribution was not actually an amended claim (that would have related back to the date of the filing of the claim being amended), but was an initial claim, asserted after the date of separation. The trial court conducted an equitable distribution trial and entered its order, which Wife appealed.

Read more