North Carolina Divorce Lawyers Blog

Distinctive Representation in Sophisticated Family Law Matters
CONTACT US TODAY
Superlawyers Badge Nafla Badge Aiofla Badge Expertise Avvo Rating 10.0 Superb Avvo Client Choice Awards Best Law Firms - Regional Tier 1 Badge Best Lawyers North Carolina State Bar Business North Carolina's Legal Elite News & Record - Readers Choice 2025 - Winner
Published on:

By

DONATI V. DONATI, 2023-NCCOA-________ (2023) (unpublished). 

  1. Facts: Husband and Wife separated and a claim for equitable distribution was filed by Husband, who claimed that he ought to receive more than fifty percent of all marital and divisible property. Husband contended that he sold his separate residence, a house owned before the marriage, and then put about $60,000 of those proceeds into the marital home. The trial court found that an in-kind distribution was equitable, and that an equal division was not. Husband appealed and argued that he was entitled to the return or reimbursement or credit for the $60,000 that he claims was his separate contribution to the marital property. 

  Continue reading →

Published on:

By

SCOTT V. VURAL, 2023-NCCOA-________ (2023) (unpublished). 

  1. Facts: This is a personal injury case. However, the rules for service apply to almost all civil cases. There was an automobile accident in February of 2018. In February of 2021, Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit and attempted to serve defendant by certified mail pursuant to Rule 4 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs mailed the summons and complaint to a Ridge Lane Road address in Charlotte. USPS delivered the envelope, but marked “C-19” on the return receipt, as part of the contactless delivery policy the USPS enacted during Covid. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to serve, stating that Defendant did not receive the summons and complaint, did not sign the certified mail receipt, and had not lived at the Ridge Lane Road property since May of 2018 when it was sold. Trial court granted. 

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Judi Rossabi, Communications Director

If you are experiencing loneliness during divorce, getting a pet can help. A pet can be a great companion and can help cheer you up. Today is national puppy day and national cuddly kitten day. Both animals make great pets and definitely make things a little livelier around the house! Coming home to an empty house is a huge challenge for newly separated and divorced people and having a furry friend to greet you can brighten your day. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Tiger Woods and Erica Herman were a couple for nearly six years.  The couple split in October 2022.  While together, the couple resided in Woods’ home in Jupiter, Florida.  Herman has sued the Jupiter Island Irrevocable Homestead Trust for at least $30 million after Woods asked her to move out of his home following the split.  Herman claims Woods controls the trust.  Woods filed a Motion to Intervene as a defendant in the matter Herman filed with the 19th Judicial Circuit Court in Martin County, Florida.     Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Ivana Moral and her ex-husband were married for 25 years.  Recently, a Spanish judge ordered Moral’s ex-husband to pay her $215,000.00 as compensation for 25 years of housework handled by Moral throughout the couple’s marriage.   

 

Moral won the judgment after arguing before the Spanish judge that she had been burdened with chores and raising the couple’s two daughters while her husband built a successful gym business.  Moral argued she was exclusively dedicated to the home and family while her husband continued to build his career, accumulating and increasing his assets.  Moral also argued that the 25 years of marriage left her feeling “economically threatened, worthless, and dependent.”   

  Continue reading →

Published on:

By

AMAN V. NICHOLSON, 2023-NCCOA-________ (2023). 

  1. Facts:  Plaintiff and Defendant are parents of a minor child. They separated in fall of 2019. Plaintiff filed for custody, and a temporary order was entered. The temporary order granted joint legal custody (decision making) and primary physical custody to the Plaintiff, visitation to Defendant. It further required each party to obtain and exchange psychological evaluations and to attend counseling. Eventually, the custody matter was set for trial in spring of 2021. On the first day of trial, Defendant provided a list of three expert witnesses that he planned on calling to testify. Plaintiff objected and wanted to exclude the expert testimony. The trial court agreed, and entered an Order that excluded Defendant’s three expert witnesses from testifying. Defendant appealed. 

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

AMAN V. NICHOLSON, 2023-NCCOA-________ (2023). 

  1. Facts:  Plaintiff and Defendant are parents of a minor child. They separated in fall of 2019. Plaintiff filed for custody, and a temporary order was entered. The temporary order granted joint legal custody (decision making) and primary physical custody to Plaintiff, visitation to Defendant. It further required each party to obtain and exchange psychological evaluations and to attend counseling. Eventually, the custody matter was set for trial in spring of 2021. On the first day of trial, Defendant provided a list to Plaintiff containing three expert witnesses that he planned on calling to testify. Defendant also provided the witnesses’ CVs and the written reports of two of the witnesses.  Plaintiff objected and wanted to exclude the expert testimony. The trial court agreed, and entered an Order that excluded Defendant’s three expert witnesses from testifying. When trying to settle the record on appeal, Defendant wanted the CVs and written reports of the experts included, while Plaintiff objected to their inclusion. In judicial settlement of the record, the trial court ordered that the reports and CVs not be included. Defendant appealed. 

  Continue reading →

Published on:

By

LIMERICK V. ROJO-LIMERICK, 2023-NCCOA-________ (2023). 

  1. Facts:  Plaintiff and Defendant are parents of a minor child. In August of 2020, Plaintiff filed for divorce from bed and board, child custody and child support, and attorney fees. Defendant counterclaimed for custody, child support, equitable distribution, alimony, and attorney fees. Defendant then voluntarily dismissed his counterclaims for equitable distribution, postseparation support, alimony, and attorney fees. However, Defendant’s claims for custody and child support remained open. Plaintiff then dismissed his claims except for child custody and child support. The trial court eventually entered into a consent order for permanent child custody, temporary child support, and attorney fees. The remaining issues for child support and fees were heard in November of 2021. Plaintiff’s claim for fees was granted. Defendant appealed. 

  Continue reading →

Published on:

By

John S Davis, NCCP

The nature lovers here at Woodruff Family Law Group, which presumably is all of us, were delighted last year to discover that a pair of Mourning Doves had built a nest under our back door awning. Despite constant daytime traffic, the birds stayed there for the entire nesting season, and it is likely that they raised more than one brood. When the nest was abandoned in the fall, we left it alone and are again delighted to find that the nest is again in use, and it is safe to assume it is the same pair of birds.

Mourning Doves, also called Carolina Turtle Doves, are prolific breeders, a quality that helps offset their position as prey to other birds and to man. Four broods per season is a common number and some pairs manage up to six. The couples do not mate for life but do frequently re-pair from one season to the next. In warmer regions a couple will stay together throughout the year, essentially becoming lifelong mates.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

CHOCIEJ V. RICHBURG, 2023-NCCOA-________ (2023). 

Facts: Plaintiff and Defendant dated. On May 31, 2021, there was a fight between the couple, and Defendant broke Plaintiff’s nose with his fists and/or forehead. Another fight broke out between the couple in the bedroom, wherein Defendant used his belt and household items, such as a lamp, to hit Plaintiff. This caused black-eyes and bruising on Plaintiff. The police were called, but Defendant fled.

Eventually, the police arrested him in July 2021 and charged him with assault on a female. After the arrest, Defendant called Plaintiff’s work and reported that Plaintiff had wrongfully disclosed his confidential medical records to a third party. This resulted in Plaintiff’s termination by her employer. That same day, Plaintiff sought a Domestic Violence Protective Order (DVPO). At the hearing, there was ample evidence of the assaults and damage done to Plaintiff by the Defendant.

The trial court also took into consideration the time between the assaults and Plaintiff’s filing for the DVPO as well as the timing of the filing with her termination. In the trial court’s denial of a DVPO, it specifically noted that the court did not believe that Plaintiff would have sought a DVPO if she had not been terminated, essentially saying that the filing was in retaliation to Defendant’s whistleblowing. Plaintiff appealed. Continue reading →