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 →
Meeker v. Meeker, 2024-NCCOA-______ (2024).
Facts: Husband and Wife married in 1982 and had two children. They separated in 2009 and finalized their divorce in May 2011.
Salvadore v. Salvadore, 2021-NCCOA-680 (2021 unpublished)
BROSNAN V. CRAMER, 2023-NCCOA-______ (2023).
Can you be awarded alimony when your spouse abuses alcohol to the point that your life has become unbearable? Like all issues in the legal field, it depends. Continue reading →
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 →
Suozzo v. Suozzo, 2022-NCCOA-620.
Facts: Plaintiff wife and Defendant husband entered into a separation agreement wherein Defendant was to pay Plaintiff $200,000 in monthly installments over 240 months. This arrangement began in March 2006 and would terminate in March of 2026. For the first 18-36 months, Defendant made the monthly payment. Sometime in 2008, Defendant stopped making those payments. Plaintiff chose to file a breach of contract claim against Defendant but not until 2019, more than ten years since Defendant stopped paying. The trial court awarded Plaintiff $100,789 in damages, calculated by granting only the missed payments due within three years of the commencement of Plaintiff’s action—as any unpaid installments due prior to February 2016 were barred by the statute of limitations—and the payments that became due while the action was pending through judgment. Defendant appealed. Continue reading →
Hill v. Durrett, 2022-NCCOA-460.
Facts: Plaintiff and Defendant were married in a friend’s backyard in 2015, and just 14 months later the couple separated. The backyard ceremony was officiated by a Ms. Plante, who was a Reiki master known as Azera Moonhawk. Ms. Plante was Defendant’s friend and was a minister of the Universal Life Church but was not authorized to perform weddings. Plaintiff eventually filed a divorce and equitable distribution action. Plaintiff also sought to have the marriage annulled based on Ms. Plante’s insufficient ordination. Plaintiff did not survive the proceedings and died before they were concluded; his estate carried on with the annulment. Defendant was the one who arranged the entire backyard extravaganza. She was the one who was good friends with Plante/Moonhawk. She was the one who told Plaintiff that Plante was qualified to perform the ceremony. She was the one who confirmed with Plante whether she could perform the ceremony. The trial court annulled. Defendant appealed.
Issue: Was the Plaintiff (his estate) equitably estopped from seeking an annulment?
During a stage presentation at CinemaCon in Las Vegas last week, Olivia Wilde was handed a yellow envelope marked “Personal and Confidential.” Wilde was discussing her upcoming film Don’t Worry Darling when the ordeal transpired, confusing both Wilde and the audience. Out of curiosity, she opened the envelope to see what was inside. After noting the contents, Wilde continued with her presentation. Later, sources confirmed that the envelope contained legal papers pertaining to her children with ex-fiancé Jason Sudeikis.
Wayne Hopper, Legal Assistant
King v. Huizar (In re Huizar), 609 BR 482
Only a handful of states still recognize alienation of affection and criminal conversation as actionable torts. North Carolina is one of those states. These claims have their roots in old English law, where a man could essentially sue for the “theft” of his wife. Modern Alienation of Affection/Criminal Conversation laws allow spouses of either gender to bring a suit.
While similar in spirit, these two torts differ in what they assert. In an alienation of affection claim, one spouse is seeking damages against a third party for wrongful acts that interfered with the marital relationship, thus depriving them of the love and affection of their spouse. They are sometimes colloquially referred to as “homewrecker” laws or “heartbalm” torts. On the other hand, criminal conversation refers specifically to adulterous, extramarital sexual acts between the Plaintiff’s spouse and a third party. Continue reading →
North Carolina Divorce Lawyers Blog