Published on:

By: Carolyn J. Woodruff, attorney

While nothing in this article should be viewed to condone the horrific acts of Christopher Lee Neal, age 42, who shot at a social services worker after children were taken from his home, the event should be a wake up call for the Department of Social Services (DSS). Apparently this Reidsville man targeted at least two social services employees that had been working on his child custody case. He shot at one of the social workers through her car window in Burlington. According to news reports, she was not injured. He was later apprehended in Myrtle Beach.

Let’s face it. Taking away a child is serious business and emotionally drenching, and should only be done by DSS with all the proper protocols, which involve either having law enforcement or a Juvenile Judge.   Unfortunately, DSS is many instances is acting outside the bounds of the law and the Constitution, and they do not follow proper protocol regarding the removal of children, in allegedly dangerous situations, from homes. This makes a parent mad.

DSS is not law enforcement, and DSS is not a court of law. DSS is an agency that MUST apply to the Juvenile Court for the authority for search and seizure of children. DSS can assess the danger and apply to the Juvenile Court, but DSS is not permitted to “search and seize” children based on its own safety assessment. This seizure is improper. While I like Sheriff Page, his statement if reported accurately is both incorrect and not in keeping with the US Constitution. He reportedly said in a Press Conference, ‘Child Protective Services were investigating a case…During the process in their job, sometimes they have to remove children from the home because of neglect and abuse.” No, this is not correct. DSS can investigate, and DSS can apply to the court to obtain an order to remove the child, but DSS cannot do this removal simply because DSS thinks it should. To do so is unconstitutional search and seizure.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Follow “Ask Carolyn” on Twitter!

Hi Carolyn

My husband is having an affair with his secretary and I want to get that woman.  I kicked him out of our home on New Year’s Day when he made an excuse that he had to go by the office for something (something? Right?), and my detective caught them red-handed.  I hear about alienation of affection.  Do I qualify?  How much do you think I’ll get?

Carolyn Answers….

While you need to have a family lawyer go over your evidence, you may have a claim for both criminal conversation AND alienation of affection against the secretary.  Alienation of affection requires (1) that you and your spouse had a genuine marital relationship; (2) that your spousal love was destroyed; (3) that the secretary caused the breakup of the genuine marital relationship; and (4) that you have damages.

Criminal conversation does not have to do with any crime we actually punish today. The requirements for criminal conversation are two-fold:  (1) sex (2) with someone’s spouse.  That’s it.

No one can really say how much you might get. Juries generally decide these issues, and juries can really vary and view these issues differently.  It is attention-grabbing that there have been some very large awards in North Carolina reported in both the North Carolina Supreme Court as well as the North Carolina Court of Appeals and literature.

Affairs also can affect alimony, as in the question below:

Continue reading →

Published on:

McCarthy Estate of McCarthy, 145 F. Supp. 3d 278 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)

Facts: A husband and wife were divorced in Florida in In an agreement incorporated into the decree, the husband agreed to maintain his wife and daughters as beneficiaries of $4 million in life insurance.

When the husband died in 2013, he had only $50,000 in life insurance payable to his former wife and daughters. He had another $500,000 policy, which was employer-provided, but he had named his girlfriend as beneficiary. He had also given almost $360,000 to the girlfriend during his lifetime.

The husband’s estate was insolvent and unable to pay damages. The wife filed suit against the girlfriend, seeking to enforce a constructive trust on the proceeds of the $500,000 policy.

Issue: Are the former wife and daughters entitled to a constructive trust on the policy proceeds?

Answer to Issue: Yes.

Summary of Rationale: The husband’s clear breach of the divorce decree was sufficient under state law to justify imposition of a constructive But the policy at issue was employer-provided and regulated by ERISA. Thus, the only question was whether state law was preempted by federal law.

Following Andochick v. Byrd, 709 F.3d 296 (4th Cir.2013), the court addressed the question which the Supreme Court refused to consider in footnote 10 of Kennedy, and held that ERISA does not preempt state law claims between claiming beneficiaries after payment of benefits by the plan administrator. “As many courts have held in the wake of that decision, after proceeds have been distributed, parties’ rights and equities may be determined without regard to ERISA because post- distribution suits do not interfere with any of those objectives.” McCarthy, 145 F. Supp. 3d at 288.


McCarthy did not expressly cite VanderKam VanderKam, 776 F.3d 883 (D.C. Cir. 2015), or any of the other cases holding that ERISA does preempt postpayment causes of action between competing beneficiaries. Continue reading →

Published on:

Becker Williams, F. Supp. 3d     , 2016 WL 878492 (W.D. Wash. 2016)

Facts: Husband and wife were married in In 2002, the husband designated the wife as survivor beneficiary of his retirement plans with Xerox.

Husband and wife were divorced in 2006. In 2007, the employer received several telephone calls from a person claiming to be the husband, who said that he wanted to change the beneficiary to his son by a prior marriage. In response to these calls, the employer sent the husband three different copies of the written form necessary to complete the change. The first two forms were not returned; the third form was returned unsigned and undated.

When the husband died, both wife and son asserted claims to the survivor benefits, and the employer interpleaded the benefits into federal court. The trial court declined to allow summary judgment, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed, finding that a telephonic change of beneficiary was potentially enforceable, even without a writing, and that a it was a material issue of fact as to whether such a designation was actually made. Becker v. Williams, 777 F.3d 1035, 1042 (9th Cir. 2015). Upon remand, the district court held a trial and addressed the merits.

Issue: Who was entitled to the husband’s survivor benefits?

Answer to Issue: The wife

Summary of Rationale: Under Washington state law, to change a survivor beneficiary, an employee must substantially conform with the terms of the policy or “[S]ubstantial compliance with the terms of the policy means that the insured has not only manifested an intent to change beneficiaries, but has done everything which was reasonably possible to make that change.”   2016 WL 878492, at *2 (quoting Allen v. Abrahamson, 12 Wash. App. 103, 105, 529 P.2d 469, 470 (1974)).

The son did not meet his burden of proving substantial compliance. First, there was no evidence that the person who called to make the change of beneficiary was actually the husband. Second, the husband’s failure to return the first two forms and his failure to sign and date the third form suggest that his intention to change the beneficiary was not complete. In this regard, the court noted that the forms themselves stated that the change of beneficiary was not valid until the form was signed and returned. “[T]he failure to complete simple, mundane tasks undermines Asa Sr.’s alleged unequivocal desire to change his beneficiary.” Id. at *3.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Walsh v. Dively, 551 B.R. 570 (W.D. Pa. 2016)

Facts: When husband and wife were divorced in Pennsylvania, they agreed that the wife would receive 50% of the husband’s The agreement was incorporated into the divorce decree, but no DRO was entered.

The wife then filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The bankruptcy trustee moved in bankruptcy court for authority to ask the state court to issue a DRO. The bankruptcy court denied the motion. The trustee then appealed.

Issue: Should the trustee be permitted to seek a DRO?

Answer to Issue: No

Summary of Rationale: The trustee has a duty to collect property of the estate in bankruptcy.  But retirement plans with an antialienation provision are not part of an estate in bankruptcy. Patterson v. Shumate, 504 U.S. 753 (1992). The retirement plan at issue was governed by ERISA, and it was subject to the statutory antialienation provision in ERISA unless a QDRO was entered. Because a DRO had not even been entered, let alone qualified by the plan, there was no QDRO, and the antialienation provision remained operative. Thus, the pension was not part of the wife’s estate in bankruptcy.

Note: As we shall shortly see, it is quite important that the state court awarded the wife an actual interest in a retirement plan, and not an award of cash she could spend freely for any purpose.


In re Kizer, 539 R. 316 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2015)

Facts: In a consent judgment of divorce, a court awarded the husband 50% of three retirement accounts owned by the wife. The wife was also awarded the marital home, but required to pay the husband for his interest. Because she lacked the funds to make the payments, she agreed to pay for the home by giving up her interest in the requirement accounts, increasing the husband’s interest to 100%.

QDROs were subsequently entered and approved, directing the administrators of the accounts to transfer to the husband 100% of the balance of certain accounts. The plan administrators complied with the QDROs by giving the husband accounts containing the funds at issue. A finding of fact was made that the husband could make withdrawals from these accounts at any time, without any form of early withdrawal penalty. (The husband claimed that his withdrawals were subject to a penalty, but he failed to produce supporting evidence, even after the court gave the husband additional time.)

Continue reading →

Published on:

By Sade Knox, Intern, Woodruff Family Law Group

King v. Giannini-King, 784 S.E.2d 237 (N.C. Ct. App. 2016).

Facts: In October 2001, Plaintiff (father) and Defendant (mother) were married and then separated, about seven years later, in early June 2008. Two minor children were born to the parties’ marriage. After the separation, Defendant relocated with the minor children. Subsequently, to Defendant’s relocation, Plaintiff brought an action for divorce from bed and board, child custody, and equitable distribution. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, a motion to strike, in addition to a counterclaim for custody, child support, alimony, etc.

The trial court initially granted both parties temporary joint legal and physical custody of the minor children. The trial court, nearly a year later, entered a custody order, granting Defendant permanent legal and physical custody of the minor children, and permitted Defendant’s relocation of herself and the minor children to Wilmington, N.C.

Plaintiff was granted visitation rights and relocated to Southport, N.C., where the parties began to modify their custody schedule. Plaintiff later remarried and returned to Person County. Soon after, Plaintiff filed motions alleging a substantial change in circumstance, which resulted in the trial court transferring primary physical custody of the minor children to Plaintiff, temporarily, and allowed Plaintiff to relocate the minor children to Person County.

Defendant filed a motion asking for a new trial, or set aside the temporary order, shortly thereafter, which the trial court denied.  Finally, in mid-December 2014, the court entered a permanent order that granted both parties joint legal and physical custody of the minor children. Defendant appealed arguing the trial court had erred in their custody orders.

Issue: Whether Plaintiff’s argument concerning the temporary custody order was appropriate for appellate review. Was there enough evidence to support a substantial change in circumstance?

Answer to Issue: No. Yes. Continue reading →

Published on:

By Sade Knox, Intern, Woodruff Family Law Group

Chafin v. Chafin, 791 S.E.2d 693 (N.C. Ct. App. 2016)

Facts: In late 1988, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a marriage that lasted about twenty years before the parties separated in June of 2008. During the years of the marriage, Defendant was an owner of a close to non-profiting auto-sales company in North Carolina. The company operated during the marriage up until the date of separation between the parties, which was when the company had dissolved, in 2008. That following year, Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking equitable distribution of the marital and divisible property and provided inventory affidavits listing the assets of the marital home shared by the parties and the company that Defendant owned. The company’s assets mainly included the bank accounts, vehicle inventory, and Cash on Hand. Defendant failed to follow the trial court’s order to serve his equitable distribution inventory affidavit but, later served an affidavit in response to the proposed pretrial order, objecting to Plaintiff’s classification of the company’s assets.

Because of the evidentiary support provided by Plaintiff, the trial court found that the assets in question were marital property and awarded Plaintiff a lump sum that Defendant was required to pay in monthly payments. Though Defendant argued otherwise, the court found that due to Defendant’s income and assets from his employment, he was capable of distributing award to Plaintiff. Defendant went on to file four motions that were denied, but eventually, the court allowed Defendant’s motion to preserve the record in which evidence was offered to show that not all vehicles listed on the pretrial order were on the auto company’s lot on the date of the parties’ separation. Defendant appeals the trial court’s other findings.

Issue: Whether all the mentioned assets of the auto company and the shared home were marital and divisible property and correctly stated.

Answer to Issue: Yes.

Summary of Rationale: All personal and real property acquired by either spouse, during the marriage up until the date of separation is marital property. Defendant, owner of the auto sale company, deemed the company as personal property and the shared home was real property, both of which were acquired by the Defendant during the period of the parties’ marriage, classifying both the company’s assets and the home as marital property.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By Sade Knox, Intern, Woodruff Family Law Group

Kelley v. Kelley, T.C. Memo. 2017-798, 2017 WL 1251018

Facts: Husband and wife were married in 1982. They later entered into a Separation and Property Settlement Agreement upon their separation in 1994 (the “1994 agreement”). The two later divorced in 1999. The 1994 agreement resolved several issues between the two such as child support, alimony, and equitable distribution, but most importantly, the agreement contained a “Modification and Waiver” clause. In 2003, approximately nine years after the parties separated and four years after their divorce, the parties allegedly signed a document titled, “Amendment to Settlement Agreement.”

The ex-wife, approximately eleven years after the parties entered into the 2003 Amendment, filed suit against ex-husband alleging he had breached the 2003 Amendment. Ex-husband responded by filing a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court denied. Ex-husband appeals to the Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Issue: Whether the ex-husband breached the 2003 Amendment.

Answer to Issue: No.

Summary of Rationale: Within the 1994 agreement, the “Modification and Waiver” clause explained that any modification or waiver of the agreement shall be consistent with the original formality of the agreement and reduced to a writing. In addition to being reduced to a writing, modifications also needed to be acknowledged by both parties before a certifying officer.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Dear Carolyn:

My soon to be ex-wife lied under oath in Guilford County Court for personal gain (money). She over-stated expenses and I am paying P.S.S. Can I charge her with perjury and sue her?



Carolyn Answers….

Dear P.J.:

Unfortunately, this is a frequently asked question in family law and divorce cases.  It seems that, almost always, someone thinks one side or the other is lying.  For all readers’ information, P.S.S. is Post Separation Support, a temporary form of alimony.  The question is as follows:   what can you do about the false statement?

This answer will first discuss your allegation of perjury.  Then, secondly, the answer will discuss possible civil remedies and suggestions for your divorce.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Dear Carolyn,

Triad parent here, contemplating divorce, but I feel compelled to stay together for the children.  The children are ages ten and twelve.  However, the marriage is quite bad; we argue all the time.  We never do anything together, and sex—forget that.  I work, and my wife does not work.  Can you give me any insight into considerations for whether I should stay in the marriage for the children, or at least until they are in college?  I want to do what is best for the children.  I am miserable.