Angarita v. Edwards, North Carolina Court of Appeals, August 3, 2021 (50C No Contact Order)
Plaintiff and defendant are neighbors. Over a period of several months, defendant engaged in a pattern of verbally aggressive behavior toward plaintiff and plaintiff’s family. Defendant accused plaintiff of breaking into her house, put a sign in her yard that said plaintiff is a dangerous criminal, sent threatening texts to plaintiff and his family, verbally harassed plaintiff and his family, told plaintiff that he and his family deserved to die and that she hoped someone killed them, and yelled racist remarks at plaintiff and his family. Plaintiff filed a 50C complaint against defendant. After a hearing, the trial court entered a 50C order in which it found that plaintiff has suffered unlawful conduct by defendant – followed by a short list of some of the behaviors – and ordering defendant to obtain a mental health assessment. The court later sua sponte amended the order to check a box in the decree that defendant shall cease stalking plaintiff. Defendant appealed.
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.pngFamilyLaw2021-10-15 09:54:422021-10-15 09:54:42Case Law Update: Angarita v. Edwards (50C No Contact Order)
The following excerpt is part of a series of blog posts on topics that will be discussed at the NCBA Privacy and Data Security Section Annual CLE. If you are interested in learning more, then please join us. Register for the program here.
There is a lot of talk, but not a lot of clear law, about artificial intelligence (AI) in the United States. Most resources reflect a common agreement on AI: it is machine based; it is a system; it addresses human objectives; it uses algorithms designed by humans; it makes predictions, recommendations and/or decisions; it is designed to evolve; and while it can do much good, it poses great risks and something should be done about regulating it.
Stakeholders also generally seem to agree on the risks posed by AI. First, the underlying data – both training data and data processed by the AI – may not be accurate. Second, the AI model has to learn to perform its function by processing large volumes of data. Collecting that data can implicate privacy laws (i.e., disclosure and consent), and there are risks for the model if the data set lacks “integrity” (i.e., the data is not sound – garbage in/garbage out). Third, the algorithm could be biased. It is, after all, developed by humans, and humans bring their own presumptions and biases to their work. Fourth, unreliable or biased AI can have serious consequences for individuals, including denial of employment, credit, housing, due process and other rights, including privacy. Consider the now infamous example of Target using AI to determine that a teenage girl was pregnant and sending her coupons in the mail for diapers and other baby items, which were discovered by the teen’s dad. Where AI has been addressed by courts, legislation or federal agencies, the focus has been on balancing these risks against the benefits of AI. Transparency (notice), data integrity, nondiscrimination, validation, impact assessments and continuous monitoring are common themes. The following summarizes some materials reflecting the trajectory of AI regulation in the USA.
https://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.png00Privacy and Data Securityhttps://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.pngPrivacy and Data Security2021-10-13 12:16:422021-10-13 12:16:42AI in the USA
Nielson v. Schmoke, North Carolina Court of Appeals, August 3, 2021 (Enforcement of Foreign Judgments)
Pursuant to a Michigan divorce judgment, entered in December 2003, and a supplemental judgment, entered in October 2009, husband was to pay to wife a total of $1,323,096.31. In 2013, pursuant to the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (UEFJA), wife enrolled the two Michigan judgments, along with supporting affidavits, and commenced an action in North Carolina. Husband filed a motion to strike and defenses to enforcement of the judgments. The trial court found wife had met the requirements of the UEFJA, found that the Michigan judgments were entitled to full faith and credit in North Carolina, and entered a North Carolina judgment against husband in the amount of $1,323,096.31.
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.pngFamilyLaw2021-10-13 10:56:152021-10-13 11:01:33Case Law Update: Nielson v. Schmoke (Enforcement of Foreign Judgments)
The North Carolina Supreme Court Historical Society’s 2021 Social is Oct. 21. The society will be celebrating its 30th anniversary, and the evening will feature a tribute to founding president Charles F. Blanchard.
Please note that the RSVP date is this Tuesday, Oct. 12 (the date by which we must give guaranteed minimums to the caterers). Given the size of the venue, tickets are limited, so please acquire yours as soon as possible if you are planning to attend (i.e., tickets may not be available at the door). We certainly hope you are able to join us for a special evening.
https://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.png00Appellatehttps://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.pngAppellate2021-10-11 16:56:342021-10-11 17:08:04NCSCHS 2021 Social
https://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.png00Privacy and Data Securityhttps://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.pngPrivacy and Data Security2021-10-11 14:56:362021-10-11 15:40:052021 Privacy and Data Security Section Program – Details and Registration
Sarah Beth Withers is dedicated to bridging the justice gap in Eastern North Carolina. In 2017, She founded Inner Banks Legal Services, a non-profit law firm based in Historic Downtown Washington. Her goal was – and still is – to provide quality legal services for low-income and modest-means individuals and families who earn too much to qualify for Legal Aid of North Carolina’s services but may not earn enough to afford traditional legal fees. In just four years, she has helped over 400 families in Eastern North Carolina. Last year, Withers tracked over 225 pro bono hours locally. She is a committed servant leader, serving her team, her community, and her clients with compassion, professionalism, openness, and grace.
Over the last four years, Withers has worked diligently to connect with attorneys, agencies, churches, and businesses in the community; she understands the critical partnerships needed to care for her neighbors. These relationships, coupled with Withers’ financial savvy and business acumen, have led to consistent, steady growth ensuring Inner Banks Legal Services longevity in Eastern North Carolina. In 2018, Withers recognized a need for family law services, hired the team to address that need, and expanded the office footprint. In 2020, the firm was granted funding to expand its legal specialties once again in order to offer pro bono legal services to domestic violence survivors – 20 individuals and families fleeing domestic violence received pro bono family law and bankruptcy services in the program’s first quarter alone. Thank you, Sarah Beth Withers, for your continued dedication to serving North Carolinians through Pro Bono!
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)
Karen Fisher Moskowitz is the Director of the Consumer Protection Program at Charlotte Center for Legal Advocacy and has dedicated her legal career to serving the most vulnerable members of her community. Moskowitz uses her expertise as an attorney to help her clients know safety and stability and has practiced for more than 25 years. She has said of her work that she is “proud to be a part of the Legal Services tradition and in the trenches day after day, fighting the good fight for the most vulnerable people in our society.”
Moskowitz and her team worked with the Charlotte Center for Legal Advocacy’s Pro Bono program coordinator to establish a monthly consumer relief clinic, in which attorneys from McGuireWoods meet with clients and take on their cases relating to automobile fraud along with other unfair and deceptive practices. Thanks to Moskowitz’s initiative to find a way instead of turning people in crisis away, Advocacy Center now serves an additional 50 to 60 clients each year in consumer protection cases.
The NCBA’s YLD coordinates the North Carolina Disaster Legal Services effort in partnership with the YLD of the American Bar Association, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and Legal Aid of North Carolina. The DLS pro bono program provides disaster-related resources and services to the public and attorneys with the support of the North Carolina Bar Foundation.
FEMA has just issued a disaster declaration that allows for assistance to be provided to Tropical Storm Fred affected residents in Buncombe, Haywood and Transylvania counties.
Case Law Update: Angarita v. Edwards (50C No Contact Order)
Family Law SectionAngarita v. Edwards, North Carolina Court of Appeals, August 3, 2021 (50C No Contact Order)
Plaintiff and defendant are neighbors. Over a period of several months, defendant engaged in a pattern of verbally aggressive behavior toward plaintiff and plaintiff’s family. Defendant accused plaintiff of breaking into her house, put a sign in her yard that said plaintiff is a dangerous criminal, sent threatening texts to plaintiff and his family, verbally harassed plaintiff and his family, told plaintiff that he and his family deserved to die and that she hoped someone killed them, and yelled racist remarks at plaintiff and his family. Plaintiff filed a 50C complaint against defendant. After a hearing, the trial court entered a 50C order in which it found that plaintiff has suffered unlawful conduct by defendant – followed by a short list of some of the behaviors – and ordering defendant to obtain a mental health assessment. The court later sua sponte amended the order to check a box in the decree that defendant shall cease stalking plaintiff. Defendant appealed.
Read more
AI in the USA
Privacy and Data SecurityThe following excerpt is part of a series of blog posts on topics that will be discussed at the NCBA Privacy and Data Security Section Annual CLE. If you are interested in learning more, then please join us. Register for the program here.
There is a lot of talk, but not a lot of clear law, about artificial intelligence (AI) in the United States. Most resources reflect a common agreement on AI: it is machine based; it is a system; it addresses human objectives; it uses algorithms designed by humans; it makes predictions, recommendations and/or decisions; it is designed to evolve; and while it can do much good, it poses great risks and something should be done about regulating it.
Stakeholders also generally seem to agree on the risks posed by AI. First, the underlying data – both training data and data processed by the AI – may not be accurate. Second, the AI model has to learn to perform its function by processing large volumes of data. Collecting that data can implicate privacy laws (i.e., disclosure and consent), and there are risks for the model if the data set lacks “integrity” (i.e., the data is not sound – garbage in/garbage out). Third, the algorithm could be biased. It is, after all, developed by humans, and humans bring their own presumptions and biases to their work. Fourth, unreliable or biased AI can have serious consequences for individuals, including denial of employment, credit, housing, due process and other rights, including privacy. Consider the now infamous example of Target using AI to determine that a teenage girl was pregnant and sending her coupons in the mail for diapers and other baby items, which were discovered by the teen’s dad. Where AI has been addressed by courts, legislation or federal agencies, the focus has been on balancing these risks against the benefits of AI. Transparency (notice), data integrity, nondiscrimination, validation, impact assessments and continuous monitoring are common themes. The following summarizes some materials reflecting the trajectory of AI regulation in the USA.
Would you like to learn more about issue spotting for privacy considerations when leveraging artificial intelligence? Join us on October 28 for the Annual Privacy and Data Security Section CLE.
Case Law Update: Nielson v. Schmoke (Enforcement of Foreign Judgments)
Family Law SectionNielson v. Schmoke, North Carolina Court of Appeals, August 3, 2021 (Enforcement of Foreign Judgments)
Pursuant to a Michigan divorce judgment, entered in December 2003, and a supplemental judgment, entered in October 2009, husband was to pay to wife a total of $1,323,096.31. In 2013, pursuant to the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (UEFJA), wife enrolled the two Michigan judgments, along with supporting affidavits, and commenced an action in North Carolina. Husband filed a motion to strike and defenses to enforcement of the judgments. The trial court found wife had met the requirements of the UEFJA, found that the Michigan judgments were entitled to full faith and credit in North Carolina, and entered a North Carolina judgment against husband in the amount of $1,323,096.31.
Read more
NCSCHS 2021 Social
Appellate PracticeThe North Carolina Supreme Court Historical Society’s 2021 Social is Oct. 21. The society will be celebrating its 30th anniversary, and the evening will feature a tribute to founding president Charles F. Blanchard.
Please note that the RSVP date is this Tuesday, Oct. 12 (the date by which we must give guaranteed minimums to the caterers). Given the size of the venue, tickets are limited, so please acquire yours as soon as possible if you are planning to attend (i.e., tickets may not be available at the door). We certainly hope you are able to join us for a special evening.
2021 Privacy and Data Security Section Program – Details and Registration
Privacy and Data SecuritySolarWinds of Change and Other Challenges for the Privacy and Data Security Practitioner (2021 Privacy & Data Security Section Program)
When
Thursday, October 28, 2021
8:55 a.m. to 4:25 p.m.
Read more
Pro Bono Spotlight: Sarah Beth Withers
Pro Bono CommitteeSarah Beth Withers is dedicated to bridging the justice gap in Eastern North Carolina. In 2017, She founded Inner Banks Legal Services, a non-profit law firm based in Historic Downtown Washington. Her goal was – and still is – to provide quality legal services for low-income and modest-means individuals and families who earn too much to qualify for Legal Aid of North Carolina’s services but may not earn enough to afford traditional legal fees. In just four years, she has helped over 400 families in Eastern North Carolina. Last year, Withers tracked over 225 pro bono hours locally. She is a committed servant leader, serving her team, her community, and her clients with compassion, professionalism, openness, and grace.
Over the last four years, Withers has worked diligently to connect with attorneys, agencies, churches, and businesses in the community; she understands the critical partnerships needed to care for her neighbors. These relationships, coupled with Withers’ financial savvy and business acumen, have led to consistent, steady growth ensuring Inner Banks Legal Services longevity in Eastern North Carolina. In 2018, Withers recognized a need for family law services, hired the team to address that need, and expanded the office footprint. In 2020, the firm was granted funding to expand its legal specialties once again in order to offer pro bono legal services to domestic violence survivors – 20 individuals and families fleeing domestic violence received pro bono family law and bankruptcy services in the program’s first quarter alone. Thank you, Sarah Beth Withers, for your continued dedication to serving North Carolinians through Pro Bono!
Case Law Update: Sprinkle v. Johnson (Due Process, Notice, Alienation of Affection)
Family Law SectionSprinkle v. Johnson, NC Court of Appeals, August 3, 2021
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.
Read more
Case Law Update: Munoz v. Munoz (Custody)
Family Law SectionMunoz 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.
Read more
Pro Bono Volunteer Spotlight: Karen Fisher Moskowitz
Pro Bono CommitteeBy Karsin Williard
Karen Fisher Moskowitz is the Director of the Consumer Protection Program at Charlotte Center for Legal Advocacy and has dedicated her legal career to serving the most vulnerable members of her community. Moskowitz uses her expertise as an attorney to help her clients know safety and stability and has practiced for more than 25 years. She has said of her work that she is “proud to be a part of the Legal Services tradition and in the trenches day after day, fighting the good fight for the most vulnerable people in our society.”
Moskowitz and her team worked with the Charlotte Center for Legal Advocacy’s Pro Bono program coordinator to establish a monthly consumer relief clinic, in which attorneys from McGuireWoods meet with clients and take on their cases relating to automobile fraud along with other unfair and deceptive practices. Thanks to Moskowitz’s initiative to find a way instead of turning people in crisis away, Advocacy Center now serves an additional 50 to 60 clients each year in consumer protection cases.
Read more
Disaster Legal Services – Request for Volunteers
Education Law SectionThe NCBA’s YLD coordinates the North Carolina Disaster Legal Services effort in partnership with the YLD of the American Bar Association, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and Legal Aid of North Carolina. The DLS pro bono program provides disaster-related resources and services to the public and attorneys with the support of the North Carolina Bar Foundation.
FEMA has just issued a disaster declaration that allows for assistance to be provided to Tropical Storm Fred affected residents in Buncombe, Haywood and Transylvania counties.
For more information, visit the sign-up form.