The US Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause[1] requires states to honor certain orders from other states, including divorces, child custody, and spousal support. However, not every family law matter is straightforward, and moving to North Carolina from out-of-state may present some challenges and unexpected changes. Continue reading →
Equitable distribution cases involving high-net-worth parties and spouses with significant assets require careful consideration to classify, valuate, and distribute property. Each piece of property must be classified as marital, separate, or divisible as a first step in equitable distribution. Determining which category each asset belongs to can be a lengthy process when there is a significant number, and valuating all the property presents further complexities. Continue reading →
Property division can be one of the most contentious parts of a divorce. Further complicating this process is the fact that courts must determine not just how marital property should be divided but even what qualifies as marital property. Equitable distribution is an option in North Carolina divorces, but the process for requesting it is not standardized throughout the state[1]. Some courts and localities have specific rules regarding filing for equitable distribution, so consulting with a Greensboro divorce lawyer will ensure the district requirements are met. Continue reading →
Achraf Hakimi is an unknown name to most Americans. However, in Europe and most of the world, he is famous as the starting right back for Paris Saint-Germain, one of the most famous soccer teams in the world, and he represented his home country, Morocco, in the latest World Cup. Needless to say, Mr. Hakimi is quite successful on the football pitch (soccer field) and has been rewarded handsomely for his talent. His contract at Paris-Saint Germain is rumored to be in the range of a million dollars a month. He’s had some legal issues recently; specifically he is under investigation by French authorities for an alleged rape. And even more recently, likely due to the underlying allegations, his wife has filed for divorce. Continue reading →
DONATI V. DONATI, 2023-NCCOA-________ (2023) (unpublished).
Let’s suppose that you provided funds, checks, cash, or other payments to your ex since separation. You have a claim pending for equitable distribution, which seeks to divide your marital property. But court is slow and it can take some time for the court to reach your case. When it does, how should the court treat those payments you made? Were they gifts, or were they something the court ought to consider in equitable distribution? Continue reading →
It is not rare in this day and age that a spouse “brings” a home into a marriage. This means that one spouse was the owner of a home before they got married. It also likely means that the spouse bringing the home into the marriage was paying the mortgage. It is typical that, upon marriage, all funds are co-mingled and “my money” becomes “our money.” That is the case even if the spouses keep separate accounts and only deposit their respective paychecks into their separate accounts. North Carolina is not a title-controls state. The acquisition of a piece of marital property is usually dependent on whether it was acquired during the marriage or not. (Note: law is complex and there are exceptions.) But what about the home? Continue reading →
Shropshire v. Shropshire, 2022-NCCOA-441.
Plaintiff and Defendant separated and initiated a case for Equitable distribution (ED). Pursuant to a pretrial Order, the parties filed affidavits for the ED trial. Both parties listed retirement plans under the “marital property” section of the affidavit. This included the Plaintiff’s 401(k) plan. Furthermore, both parties designated that Plaintiff’s retirement plans had values to be determined for date of separation and “net” value. Under the section of the affidavit marked for “divisible property,” neither party listed any property.
In a hearing in August of 2018, the parties testified about ED. In October 2018, the trial court judge told the parties that evidence was going to be reopened so that evidence could be presented that showed the date of trial values for the retirement plans, as well as value of the marital residence. Plaintiff objected to the reopening and filed a motion to recuse.
The motion was denied in trial court and the reopening was allowed. The information was provided over objections, and a final ED order was entered. Plaintiff appealed. Continue reading →
Wright v. Wright, 222 N.C. App. 309, 730 S.E.2d 218 (2012)
Our pets and divorce saga continues. Today we have a tale from the state of Washington that continues this trend. A couple that separated in 2018 owned two dogs together: Kona and Mr. Bear. At the time, they co-parented the dogs extensively, texting each other schedules, grooming appointments, trainings, and social outings. Throughout the divorce proceedings, both parties emphasized how important the dogs were to them, and how important it was for the dogs not to be split up. Ultimately, the Husband got the dogs, but the Wife got a visitation schedule. Husband wanted to remove those visitation provisions, the court denied, and he appealed to the court of appeals. Husband won, and the visitation provisions were struck out. Continue reading →
North Carolina Divorce Lawyers Blog