Affidavits—person residing outside the state—signed under penalty of perjury—notarization not required —In a child support case, the trial court erred by declining to admit into evidence the affidavit of plaintiff-mother, who resided outside of the United States, on the basis that the affidavit was not notarized and plaintiff was not present to be examined. Pursuant to the special evidentiary rule in N.C.G.S. § 52C-3-315(b) (part of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act), the affidavit was admissible because plaintiff signed it under penalty of perjury, and notarization was not required. Gyger v. Clement , 375 N.C. 80 (2020) (Author: Chief Justice Paul Newby)

Voluntary support agreement—jurisdiction to modify—legislative history—Although the plain meaning of N.C.G.S. § 50-13.7(a) was sufficient to determine that the district court had jurisdiction to modify a Voluntary Support Agreement and Order, the legislative history indicated that the legislature did not intend for the statute to create a jurisdictional prerequisite to modify child support orders. Catawba County ex rel. Rackley v. Loggins , 370 N.C. 83 (2017) (Author: Justice Michael Morgan)

Voluntary support agreement—modification—directory rather than mandatory statute—The provision of N.C.G.S. § 50-13.7(a) requiring that a motion to modify a Voluntary Support Agreement and Order be filed was directory rather than mandatory, so that the absence of a motion to modify a child support order did not divest the district court of jurisdiction to act under the statute. The provision concerned a matter of form, rather than a matter of substance and merely addressed the procedural aspects of modifying a child support order. Catawba County ex rel. Rackley v. Loggins , 370 N.C. 83 (2017) (Author: Justice Michael Morgan)

Voluntary support agreement—jurisdiction to modify—alignment with a change in circumstances—A North Carolina Supreme Court decision, that N.C.G.S. § 50-13.7(a) did not create a jurisdictional prerequisite and did not contain a mandatory requirement that a party or interested person file a motion for child support modification in order for a district court to exercise jurisdiction, harmoniously aligned with the statutory provision requiring a showing of a change in circumstances for a child support order to be modified. Catawba County ex rel. Rackley v. Loggins , 370 N.C. 83 (2017) (Author: Justice Michael Morgan)

Retroactive support award—family health insurance premiums—calculation pursuant to child support guidelines—In a proceeding for child support, the trial court's award of retroactive child support from defendant to plaintiff was proper where plaintiff requested reimbursement for previous expenditures on premiums for a family health care plan; however, that portion of the trial court's order was vacated, and the matter was remanded for recalculation of the amount of retroactive support because the trial court failed to calculate the parties' children's specific portion of the premiums, in contradiction of the child support guidelines established by the Conference of Chief District Court Judges pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 50-13.4(c1). Denis v. Chandler , No. COA24-599 (N.C. App. Jul. 16, 2025) (Author: Judge Christopher Freeman)

Prospective support award—defendant's gross income—imputation of defendant's income—plaintiff's income—support of other children—proper worksheet—In a proceeding for child support, competent evidence supported the trial court's findings of fact concerning: (1) the calculation of defendant's monthly gross income, based on the court's credibility determinations regarding defendant's testimony, financial affidavit, and tax returns; (2) the imputation of defendant's income, based on his past income, due to its determination that defendant's most recent financial evidence was unreliable; (3) the calculation of plaintiff's 2023 income, based upon her past income, where the parties' evidence was conflicting on the 2023 income; and (4) the choice not to credit defendant for support paid for another biological child with a different woman, where the child support guidelines provided only that such payments "may" be considered and where defendant failed to show he consistently paid support for an extended time period. However, because the trial court failed to make findings of fact as to the number of nights the children spent with each parent between 2018 and 2021, the appellate court could not determine whether the trial court used the appropriate worksheet in calculating its award; accordingly, the child support order was vacated and the matter was remanded for the entry of additional factual findings. Denis v. Chandler , No. COA24-599 (N.C. App. Jul. 16, 2025) (Author: Judge Christopher Freeman)

Child support award—parent's income—findings of fact insufficient—In a proceeding for equitable distribution, alimony, and child support, the trial court erred in calculating child support based upon plaintiff's income from a previous year (rather than his income at the time of the order's entry) without making findings of fact that would support such an award. Theuerkorn v. Heller , No. COA24-715 (N.C. App. Jun. 18, 2025) (Author: Judge Julee Flood)

Permanent child support order—imputed income—no abuse of discretion—In a child custody and support proceeding between divorced parents, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imputing income to defendant for child support purposes where the court's: (1) findings of fact supported its determination that defendant had acted in bad faith to suppress his income, and defendant only challenged weight and credibility determinations made by the court (and critiqued the court's failure to make different and additional findings that he would have preferred), matters left to the discretion of the trial court; and (2) calculation of the amount of income to be imputed followed the framework provided by the North Carolina Child Support Guidelines and was based on evidence of defendant's past income, his employment potential, and earning levels in the community, as demonstrated by the income of a plumber and a plumber's assistant in defendant's employ–a reasonable response to the opacity of defendant's financial circumstances given his refusal to provide documentation thereof. Keith v. Keith , 297 N.C. App. 356 (2024) (Author: Judge Valerie Zachary)

Permanent child support order—past-prospective child support—effective date—remanded for findings—In a child custody and support proceeding between divorced parents, where the trial court set an effective date in July 2019 for past-prospective child support, a date after plaintiff filed her complaint for child support in August 2017, deviating from the pertinent directive in the North Carolina Child Support Guidelines–that such payments should begin on the date a complaint is filed unless a trial court finds, based upon evidence in the record, that it would be unjust or inappropriate to do so–the matter was remanded because the court left implicit the rationale for its past-prospective child support award, rather than making the explicit findings and conclusions required. Keith v. Keith , 297 N.C. App. 356 (2024) (Author: Judge Valerie Zachary)

Child support—reimbursement for extraordinary expenses—remanded for findings—A child support order in a proceeding between divorced parents was remanded where the trial court left implicit its basis for ordering that defendant reimburse plaintiff for half of prior camp expenses–a permitted expense under the North Carolina Child Support Guidelines "if the court determines the expenses are reasonable, necessary, and in the child's best interest." Keith v. Keith , 297 N.C. App. 356 (2024) (Author: Judge Valerie Zachary)

Child support—modification—self-employed parent's income—depreciation expenses—sufficiency of findings—The trial court abused its discretion by modifying defendant father's child support obligation without making sufficient findings regarding depreciation expenses (claimed by defendant as deductions on his personal tax returns), which it excluded when calculating defendant's gross income from self-employment. Since the trial court did not make a finding that it was treating the depreciation as accelerated (versus straight-line), or that the depreciation was inappropriate for income determination pursuant to the North Carolina Child Support Guidelines, the trial court's findings lacked sufficient specificity to support its conclusions. Therefore, the court's modification order was reversed and the matter was remanded for additional findings. Mecklenburg Cnty. v. Pressley , 297 N.C. App. 82 (2024) (Author: Judge Julee Flood)

Child support—modification—determination of gross income—competent evidence—In a proceeding to modify child support, the trial court did not err in determining the mother's gross income for child support purposes where each challenged finding of fact addressing the mother's income and expenses–particularly those concerning financial assistance and gifts provided to the mother and the parties' children by the mother's family–and the court's child support calculations were supported by competent evidence; even if that evidence might have supported other findings, matters of credibility and weight could not be second-guessed on appeal. Crenshaw v. Crenshaw , 296 N.C. App. 1 (2024) (Author: Judge Donna Stroud)

Support—date of modification—retroactive increase—no abuse of discretion—In a proceeding to modify child support, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the father to pay increased child support retroactive to 1 January 2022 rather than to the filing date of either party's motion to modify child support–9 October 2020 for the father's motion for a decrease on grounds that two of the parties' three children had graduated from high school and turned eighteen or 14 January 2021 for the mother's motion for an increase based on changed circumstances in the form of the father's increased income and the remaining minor child's increased needs–where there was a legal basis to increase the father's obligation from the date of the mother's motion and the court set the later effective date of the modification as a compromise in light of the competing motions. Crenshaw v. Crenshaw , 296 N.C. App. 1 (2024) (Author: Judge Donna Stroud)

Support—modification—reasonable needs of the child—no abuse of discretion—In a proceeding to modify child support, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in relying on the father's evidence rather than the mother's evidence as to the reasonable needs of the parties' child, even though the mother provided most of the care for the child, because determinations regarding credibility and the weight to be accorded evidence were reserved solely for the trial court. Crenshaw v. Crenshaw , 296 N.C. App. 1 (2024) (Author: Judge Donna Stroud)

Award of attorney fees—notice sufficient—statutory finding made—no abuse of discretion—The appellate court affirmed the trial court's award of attorney fees to the mother in an amount less than half of what she requested after determining that: (1) the father had notice that the issue of attorney fees would be considered at a hearing on the mother's motion to modify child support because the motion included a request for attorney fees and, further, the father made no objection on notice grounds when the mother introduced evidence regarding her attorney fees; (2) the trial court's finding of fact that the father initiated a frivolous action or proceeding supported an award of attorney fees to the mother under N.C.G.S. § 50-13.6; and (3) the court did not abuse its discretion in regard to the amount of the award in light of the parties' respective financial circumstances. Crenshaw v. Crenshaw , 296 N.C. App. 1 (2024) (Author: Judge Donna Stroud)

Child support—primary liability—same-sex unmarried couple—non-biological parent's obligation—gender neutral interpretation of statute inappropriate—In a child support matter involving a same-sex unmarried couple who shared joint custody of their child, the trial court erred by adopting a gender neutral interpretation of N.C.G.S. § 50-13.4–regarding primary liability for child support to be shared by a child's "mother" and "father"–to deem the child's non-biological parent a "lawful parent" required by statute to pay child support. The clear and unambiguous statutory language did not allow for the extension of primary liability for child support to a non-biological or non-adoptive parent, even one acting in loco parentis and sharing custodial rights. Green v. Carter , 293 N.C. App. 51 (2024) (Author: Judge Donna Stroud)

Child support and arrears—imputation of father's income—improper judicial notice of job market—unsupported finding of bad faith suppression of income—delay in entering child support order—An order determining the permanent child support obligation and amount of arrears owed by a father, who had lost his job at a foreign bank, was reversed and remanded. Firstly, the court abused its discretion in taking judicial notice of the "substantial employment opportunities in banking and finance" in Charlotte, where the father lived, as this fact was not the sort of undisputed adjudicative fact contemplated under Evidence Rule 201(b). Secondly, the court erred by imputing income to the father where none of the evidence supported the court's finding that the father failed to seek new employment in good faith. Finally, by waiting twenty-one months after the child support hearing to enter the order–at which point the children had either reached or were close to reaching the age of majority–the judge failed to diligently discharge their administrative duties pursuant to Canon 3B(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct and was instructed on remand to enter factual findings explaining the delay. Sternola v. Aljian , 293 N.C. App. 166 (2024) (Author: Judge John Tyson)

Child support—secondary liability—unmarried partner—acting in loco parentis—voluntary assumption of obligation in writing required—In a child support matter involving a same-sex unmarried couple who shared joint custody of their child, although the child's non-biological parent stood in loco parentis to the child and enjoyed custodial rights, she could not be secondarily liable for child support pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 50-13.4 because she had not voluntarily assumed a child support obligation in writing. Green v. Carter , 293 N.C. App. 51 (2024) (Author: Judge Donna Stroud)

Subject matter jurisdiction—modification of out-of-state child support order—registration required—In an action to modify the child support provisions of a Virginia order (which contained both child custody and child support provisions), the trial court's order modifying the mother's child support obligation from $0.00 to $777.00 per month was vacated for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because, although the mother registered the Virginia order in North Carolina pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 50A-305 regarding the custody provisions, neither party registered the foreign order in this state pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) (Chapter 52C) for purposes of enforcement or modification of the Virginia Order's child support provisions. Sinclair v. Sinclair , 291 N.C. App. 435 (2023) (Author: Judge Donna Stroud)

Child support—gross income—work-related childcare costs—school tuition—In a divorce-related matter, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the child support provisions of its order, to which the husband made numerous challenges on appeal. As for the calculation of the wife's gross income, the trial court's findings were supported by competent evidence of the wife's current income (additionally, the court was not required to make findings on the wife's reasonable expenses arising from her self-employment), and the court was not required to treat the wife's non-recurring, one-time early withdrawal from a retirement account as income. As for the allocation of summer camp expenses as work-related childcare costs, the trial court's finding that the wife had $386.56 in monthly work-related childcare costs was supported by competent evidence in the form of the wife's financial affidavit and her testimony. Finally, as for the child's school tuition expenses, which the trial court ordered the husband to pay, the trial court properly utilized the Child Support Guideline Worksheet and allocated all of the expenses based on the parties' respective percentage responsibility for the total support obligation (in other words, contrary to the husband's argument, he was not "solely responsible" for the tuition costs). Klein v. Klein , 290 N.C. App. 570 (2023) (Author: Judge Donna Stroud)

Separation agreement—breach of child support provisions—independent claim for child support under Child Support Guidelines—improper dismissal—In a legal dispute between separated spouses, where the trial court erred in dismissing plaintiff wife's claim for breach of contract alleging that defendant husband breached the child support provisions of the parties' separation agreement, the court also erred in dismissing plaintiff's separate, alternative claim for child support under the Child Support Guidelines where, if upon reviewing the breach of contract claim on remand, the trial court were to decide that defendant's child support obligations under the separation agreement were unreasonable (and therefore required modification pursuant to the Guidelines), plaintiff's claim for ongoing child support under the Guidelines would not be time-barred under the applicable statute of limitations. Clute v. Gosney , 290 N.C. App. 368 (2023) (Author: Judge Valerie Zachary)

Child support—gross income—daycare expenses—lack of evidentiary support—In a child support action between the mother and father of two children, the trial court's order was vacated and the matter remanded to the trial court because several findings of fact–about the parties' respective monthly gross incomes, the amount paid by the father for the children's health insurance, and the amount spent by the father on daycare expenses–either did not match the parties' testimony or were not supported by any evidence. Gavia v. Gavia , 289 N.C. App. 491 (2023) (Author: Judge Michael Stading)

Child support—improper decree—non-party ordered to pay children's insurance—lack of in loco parentis status—In a child support action between the mother and father of two children, the trial court's decree that the mother's husband was required to obtain supplemental health insurance to cover the children was improper where the mother's husband was not a party to the proceedings and, even if he had been, there was no evidence that he had assumed in loco parentis status of the parties' children. Gavia v. Gavia , 289 N.C. App. 491 (2023) (Author: Judge Michael Stading)

Child support—purported consent order between the parties—validity—lack of evidence in appellate record—In a child support matter in which the appellate court vacated the trial court's order on the basis that several findings of fact were not supported by the evidence, the appellate court concluded there was insufficient evidence from which it could determine whether the parties entered into a consent agreement or whether the trial court's order was intended to constitute a consent judgment. Although there was some indication that the parties had discussed certain issues during a break in the proceedings and that the trial court spoke with the parties' counsel in chambers, nothing in the transcript of the proceedings or in the order demonstrated that the parties gave their unqualified consent to a permanent child support order. Gavia v. Gavia , 289 N.C. App. 491 (2023) (Author: Judge Michael Stading)

Child support—prospective—deviation from guidelines—lack of findings—In a child support matter in which the appellate court vacated the trial court's order on the basis that several findings of fact regarding the parties' respective incomes and various expenses were not supported by the evidence, there was also a lack of evidence to support the trial court's deviation from the North Carolina Child Support Guidelines, which it did when, instead of ordering the father to pay support starting from the date the mother requested it in her responsive pleading, the court ordered the father to begin paying support after the hearing was held. The matter was remanded for additional findings, based on new or existing evidence according to the trial court's discretion. Gavia v. Gavia , 289 N.C. App. 491 (2023) (Author: Judge Michael Stading)

Child support action—attorney fees—statutory findings—In an action that, by the time of trial, was solely an action for child support, the trial court erred by awarding attorney fees in favor of plaintiff–the party ordered to pay child support–where the court failed to make the statutorily required finding that "the party ordered to furnish support has refused to provide support which is adequate under the circumstances existing at the time of the institution of the action or proceeding" (N.C.G.S. § 50-13.6) and where the trial court did not find (and would not have found, on the facts of this case) that plaintiff as the supporting party initiated a frivolous action or proceeding. Limerick v. Rojo-Limerick , 288 N.C. App. 29 (2023) (Author: Judge Tobias Hampson)

Noncompliance with support order—civil contempt—willfulness—credit for previous overpayments—The trial court did not err by finding plaintiff-father in civil contempt for failure to comply with his child support obligations where, instead of paying the ordered amount of child support, plaintiff began paying one cent per pay period due to his belief that he had a credit for previous overpayments of child support. The trial court properly concluded that plaintiff was in willful violation of the child support order because plaintiff was able to pay and was not entitled to an automatic credit for previous overpayments; rather, plaintiff should have applied to the trial court for modification of his support obligations. Barham v. Barham , 286 N.C. App. 764 (2022) (Author: Judge John Arrowood)

Noncompliance with support order—attorney fees—statutory findings—The trial court did not err by ordering plaintiff-father to pay attorney fees to defendant-mother pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 50-13.6 where plaintiff argued that he did not refuse to provide support but rather had previously overpaid support and sought a credit for his overpayments. The court made appropriate statutory findings–including that plaintiff had willfully failed to comply with his obligations under the child support order and that defendant was an interested party in good faith who had insufficient means to defray the expense of the suit. Barham v. Barham , 286 N.C. App. 764 (2022) (Author: Judge John Arrowood)

Motion to establish credit for overpayment of support—Rule 11 sanctions—plausible legal theory—The trial court's order imposing Rule 11 sanctions upon plaintiff-father in response to his motion to establish credit for overpayment of child support was reversed where the sanctions were based upon the trial court's erroneous conclusion that plaintiff's motion lacked a plausible legal theory. Although plaintiff's actions in paying only one cent in child support per pay period in violation of the child support order were not permissible, no caselaw precluded him from seeking a credit for previous overpayments. Barham v. Barham , 286 N.C. App. 764 (2022) (Author: Judge John Arrowood)

Child support modification—calculation of income—stipulation of parties—no record evidence—In a lengthy and complex child support case, the trial court's factual finding that the parties had previously stipulated to limiting their evidence to two particular years' worth of income for purposes of calculating child support was in error where the specific terms of the oral stipulation did not affirmatively appear in the transcript or the record, and where there was no indication that the trial court contemporaneously inquired of the parties about the stipulation at the time it was made. Moreover, the trial court erred by entering a child support order that relied on the undocumented stipulation and that was based only upon the parties' past income (specifically, from seven and five years earlier) rather than their current income. Eidson v. Kakouras , 286 N.C. App. 388 (2022) (Author: Judge Donna Stroud)

Child support modification—calculation of income—sufficiency of findings—evidentiary support—In a lengthy and complex child support case, the trial court's order determining child support was vacated and the matter remanded for further findings of fact regarding how the trial court calculated the parties' incomes–including why all rental expenses from defendant father's rental properties were omitted when calculating his net rental income, how the "profit" and "loan to shareholder" income for defendant's businesses was computed, and how the trial court arrived at the figures for plaintiff mother's monthly income. Eidson v. Kakouras , 286 N.C. App. 388 (2022) (Author: Judge Donna Stroud)

Child support modification—substantial change of circumstances—In a lengthy and complex child support case in which only past support was still at issue, after the appellate court determined that multiple child support orders should be vacated and the matter remanded for the trial court to make additional findings regarding the parties' incomes, expenses, and the children's needs during the relevant time periods, the appellate court also held that the trial court properly determined that there was sufficient evidence of a substantial change of circumstances justifying modification of child support in each of two prior years when the parties filed their respective motions to modify. Eidson v. Kakouras , 286 N.C. App. 388 (2022) (Author: Judge Donna Stroud)

Child support modification—findings of fact—bad faith—imputed income—In its order modifying child support, the trial court's factual findings were supported by competent evidence where it was within the trial court's discretion to make credibility determinations and where defendant was required to provide ongoing documentation of his income (even if the trial court incorrectly identified the specific mechanism requiring the documentation). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in imputing income to defendant based on the determination that he had acted in bad faith where the circumstances surrounding the termination of his employment from his friend's business the week before the child support modification hearing, combined with his refusal to seek gainful employment or file for unemployment, supported the trial court's reasoned decision. Cash v. Cash , 286 N.C. App. 196 (2022) (Author: Judge Donna Stroud)

Modification—retroactive—payments not past due—prior mandate—Where the trial court retroactively reduced plaintiff-father's child support obligation–based on the fact that one of the parties' children had turned eighteen and graduated from high school–and ordered defendant-mother to pay back to plaintiff-father approximately $41,000, the trial court's order did not violate the plain language of N.C.G.S. § 50-13.10(a) because that section applies only to past-due child support obligations. Furthermore, the trial court did not violate a mandate from a previous Court of Appeals opinion in the matter, which in dicta stated that plaintiff-father "may now" file a motion to modify but did not require him to do so (where he had already filed a motion to modify the temporary child support order). Berens v. Berens , 284 N.C. App. 595 (2022) (Author: Chief Judge Chris Dillon)

Relative ability to provide for children—total monthly income—calculation—The trial court's order modifying plaintiff-father's child support obligation was vacated and remanded as to the portions determining defendant-mother's monthly income where it was unclear from the order and the record how the trial court calculated the total monthly income of defendant, who worked as a real estate broker. Other portions of the order that defendant challenged–not increasing the amount of her reasonable monthly expenses, considering the availability of the children's money contained in their Uniform Transfers to Minors Act accounts to pay for their private school and car insurance, and making certain findings about 529 plans owned by defendant–were affirmed. Berens v. Berens , 284 N.C. App. 595 (2022) (Author: Chief Judge Chris Dillon)

Child support—calculation of gross income—ordinary and necessary expenses—The trial court did not abuse its discretion in calculating a father's monthly gross income for purposes of determining his child support obligation where the father argued that the court failed to deduct a pest control expense and various mortgage payments from his business receipts as "ordinary and necessary expenses" of operating his three businesses. The record showed that the father failed to produce any competent evidence of which expenses were truly business expenses; the court found that his testimony on the matter was evasive, misleading, and lacked credibility; and, at any rate, mortgage payments do not constitute "ordinary and necessary expenses" under the Child Support Guidelines. Further, the court was not required to deduct the father's prior temporary child support and equitable distribution payments from his monthly gross income where the Guidelines do not permit such deductions. Britt v. Britt , 284 N.C. App. 359 (2022) (Author: Judge Valerie Zachary)

Modification—out-of-court agreement—contempt—willfulness—In a child custody and support matter, where defendant had been found in civil contempt for failure to make required payments to plaintiff, the trial court did not err by denying defendant's Rule 59 motion seeking relief from the contempt order because the parties' out-of-court agreement could not modify the child support order. The appellate court also rejected defendant's argument regarding his purported lack of willfulness because defendant was an experienced civil trial lawyer and there was no ambiguity concerning whether he was required to make the child support payments. Bossian v. Bossian , 284 N.C. App. 208 (2022) (Author: Judge April Wood)

Contempt order—Rule 59 motion—payments to other parent—In a child custody and support matter, where defendant had been found in civil contempt for failure to make required payments to plaintiff, the trial court did not err by denying defendant's Rule 59 motion for relief from the contempt order where the parties' out-of-court agreement could not modify the child support order, there was sufficient evidence about defendant's ability to pay, there was no abuse of discretion in the trial court's award of attorney fees to plaintiff, and the dental work for which defendant was required to reimburse plaintiff was reasonable and medically necessary. Bossian v. Bossian , 284 N.C. App. 208 (2022) (Author: Judge April Wood)

Custody—constitutionally protected parental status—voluntarily ceding custody to nonparent—In a custody dispute between a child's maternal grandmother (plaintiff) and father (defendant), the trial court properly awarded primary physical custody to plaintiff where the court's findings–supported by clear and convincing evidence–showed that defendant acted inconsistently with his constitutionally protected status as a parent. Specifically, the court found that, because the child's mother frequently stayed away for extended periods due to substance abuse, plaintiff had been the child's primary caretaker for most of the child's life; defendant knew his child was in plaintiff's care because of the mother's drug use and criminal issues, but took no steps to obtain custody of the child; defendant consistently failed to pay his child support obligation in full; and defendant rarely visited the child or otherwise made any effort to exercise his parental rights until plaintiff filed the custody action. Drum v. Drum , 284 N.C. App. 272 (2022) (Author: Judge John Tyson)

Child's reasonable needs—competent evidence—post-separation support affidavit in separate hearing—An order requiring defendant-father to pay nearly $6,200 per month in child support to plaintiff-mother was vacated and remanded where the findings of fact concerning the child's reasonable needs for shelter, clothing, electricity, and utilities were not supported by competent evidence–and plaintiff-mother's post-separation support (PSS) affidavit, which was introduced in a separate hearing for PSS on the same day but not introduced in the child support hearing, could not be considered competent evidence in support of the findings in the child support order. In addition, the findings concerning the child's reasonable needs did not support the award of child support and gave no indication of any methodology applied in reaching the award. Jain v. Jain , 284 N.C. App. 69 (2022) (Author: Judge Allegra Collins)

Motion to modify support—sufficiency of allegations—detailed financials not required—The trial court erred by denying a father's motion to modify child support for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The motion contained allegations in sufficient detail under N.C.G.S. § ss 50-13.7 and -13.10 and the Child Support Guidelines to provide notice to the mother that the basis on which the father sought child support was that three years had elapsed since entry of the last order and that there was a difference of 15% or more from the previously-ordered support (in this case, zero) to support calculated under current circumstances. The father made his motion using the AOC form designated for that purpose, and he was not required to allege the parties' actual incomes or any other detailed financial information. Barus v. Coffey , 281 N.C. App. 250 (2022) (Author: Judge Donna Stroud)

Child support—imputing income—bad faith—hiding income—meritless arguments—In a child support action, the trial court did not err when it refused to impute income to plaintiff-father from his former Department of Defense (DoD) position as a combat instructor where the evidence showed that plaintiff decided to leave the DoD position due to degenerative disc disease, joint disease, chronic sinus disease, and prostate cancer and instead to pursue a law degree. Further, defendant-mother's argument that plaintiff was shielding income–including that plaintiff's bankruptcy documents reflected a different income than what was provided on plaintiff's child support financial affidavit–was meritless. Mendez v. Mendez , 281 N.C. App. 36 (2021) (Author: Judge John Tyson)

Child support—Child Support Guidelines—deviation—motion—In a child support action, the trial court properly excluded expenses for the children's activities where defendant-mother did not move to deviate from the Child Support Guidelines. Mendez v. Mendez , 281 N.C. App. 36 (2021) (Author: Judge John Tyson)

Attorney fees—denied—bad faith—sufficient means to defray expense—no refusal to pay support—In a child support action, the trial court properly denied an award of attorney fees to defendant-mother where she pursued an increase in child support even though she knew that plaintiff-father had been diagnosed with cancer and planned to attend law school, she knew that the action was unlikely to be decided in her favor, she had sufficient means to defray the expense of the action, and there was no evidence that plaintiff had failed to pay the required child support. Mendez v. Mendez , 281 N.C. App. 36 (2021) (Author: Judge John Tyson)

Child support—calculation—work-related childcare costs—extraordinary expenses—arrears—The trial court in a divorce case properly calculated defendant husband's child support obligation where competent evidence supported its finding that the parties' reasonable work-related childcare costs were $600 per month; where, when calculating the children's extraordinary expenses, the court did not abuse its discretion by including costs for certain extracurriculars because although there was no evidence that these costs would be recurring, there also was no evidence that they would not be; and where, when calculating defendant's arrears, the court was not required to give defendant a credit for any extraordinary expenses he had paid while the case was still pending. Wadsworth v. Wadsworth , 281 N.C. App. 201 (2021) (Author: Judge Darren Jackson)

Termination of support—terms of parties' separation agreement—presumption of reasonableness—In a child support action, where the parties previously agreed on a child support amount in a private, unincorporated separation agreement, the trial court properly applied a presumption of reasonableness in awarding the mother the agreed-upon amount and damages for breach of contract based upon the father's nonpayment. Although the father argued that his support obligation terminated when he became the custodial parent for a period of time, that scenario was not one of the enumerated reasons listed in the agreement for terminating support. Therefore, since the agreement remained in force, its terms controlled. Jackson v. Jackson , 280 N.C. App. 325 (2021) (Author: Judge Fred Gore)

Amount of support—reasonable needs of child—at time of hearing—sufficiency of findings—In a child support action where the parties had previously agreed to a child support amount in a private, unincorporated separation agreement, the trial court's determination of the father's child support obligation was not based on competent evidence where its findings regarding the reasonable needs of the child did not address present expenses at the time of the hearing. Further, findings on past expenditures were speculative where they detailed the amount of money spent by the mother, but not how much of that money was spent to cover the child's expenses. Jackson v. Jackson , 280 N.C. App. 325 (2021) (Author: Judge Fred Gore)

Child support—calculation—imputed income—sufficiency of evidence—In a child support action, a finding by the trial court regarding the father's income was not made in error where there was competent evidence of his base salary and earned commissions, the last of which he was due to receive the week of the hearing. Further, the trial court's finding regarding the mother's income took into account support she received from third parties. Jackson v. Jackson , 280 N.C. App. 325 (2021) (Author: Judge Fred Gore)

Child support—N.C. Child Support Guidelines—deviation—required findings of fact—A child support order was reversed and remanded where the trial court deviated from the N.C. Child Support Guidelines–by excluding the father's substantial work bonuses from his gross income for purposes of calculating child support–but failed to enter the factual findings required under N.C.G.S. § 50-13.4(c) to support the deviation and to permit appellate review of the child support calculation. Specifically, the court entered insufficient findings regarding the reasonable needs of the children, and its finding regarding the presumptive child support amount under the Guidelines was incomplete because it was based on an incorrect calculation of the father's gross income. Kincheloe v. Kincheloe , 278 N.C. App. 62 (2021) (Author: Judge Donna Stroud)

Child support—calculation—mother's gross income—double-counting expenses—insufficient findings—The trial court's child support calculation was reversed and remanded where, although the court correctly treated housing and utilities support that the maternal grandmother provided the mother as part of the mother's gross income, the court's minimal findings of fact made it impossible to determine on appeal whether the trial court improperly double counted the grandmother's financial support as both the mother's income and a reduction of her living expenses, which in turn precluded appellate review of the court's deviation from the N.C. Child Support Guidelines. Kincheloe v. Kincheloe , 278 N.C. App. 62 (2021) (Author: Judge Donna Stroud)

Child support—consent order—arrears calculation—insufficient findings—In a child support action, where the parents had previously entered into a consent order requiring the father to pay monthly child support, alimony, the children's uninsured medical expenses, and the costs of "agreed-upon extracurricular activities" for the children, the trial court's child support order was reversed and remanded where the court held that the mother owed the father for overpayment of child support and unreimbursed expenses but failed to enter sufficient factual findings to support its calculation of arrears. Kincheloe v. Kincheloe , 278 N.C. App. 62 (2021) (Author: Judge Donna Stroud)

Child support—calculation of parent's income—sufficiency of findings—conclusory—In a child support case, where the trial court's conclusory findings of fact were insufficient to support appellate review of its calculation of the father's gross monthly income from self-employment, the case was remanded for further findings of fact. Craven Cnty. v. Hageb , 277 N.C. App. 586 (2021) (Author: Judge Valerie Zachary)

Child support—credit for child living in home—sufficiency of findings—In a child support case, where the trial court failed to articulate its rationale for declining to give the father credit for a child living in his home, the case was remanded for further findings of fact to allow for appellate review. Craven Cnty. v. Hageb , 277 N.C. App. 586 (2021) (Author: Judge Valerie Zachary)

Child support—increase in parent's income—outside of Child Support Guidelines—The trial court did not abuse its discretion by increasing plaintiff father's child support obligation where the father's income had increased significantly since the previous order and where the court properly considered the parties' estates, earnings, conditions, and the accustomed standard of living of the child and the parties pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 50-13.4(c). The fact that the order awarded almost 110% of the child's total reasonable needs was not fatal; because the case fell outside the Child Support Guidelines, the trial court was not required to use a specific formula to set the amount of support. Bishop v. Bishop , 275 N.C. App. 457 (2020) (Author: Judge Donna Stroud)

Child support—calculation—extraordinary expenses—residential treatment program—In determining child support obligations, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering both parties to contribute to the extraordinary expenses, as defined by the N.C. Child Support Guidelines, incurred by their youngest son for in-patient treatment and associated costs for transportation and psychological evaluations. The court's unchallenged findings supported its conclusion that defendant father had the ability to pay his portion of the expenses, and the court was not required to make specific findings before making a discretionary adjustment regarding the extraordinary expenses, which was not a deviation from the guidelines. Madar v. Madar , 275 N.C. App. 600 (2020) (Author: Judge Wanda Bryant)

Child support—calculation—unreimbursed and uninsured medical expenses—In determining child support obligations, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering defendant father to pay all of the minor child's unreimbursed/uninsured medical expenses given evidence of the large disparity between the parties' respective incomes, which supported the court's determination that defendant had the ability to pay for those expenses. Madar v. Madar , 275 N.C. App. 600 (2020) (Author: Judge Wanda Bryant)

Child support—reimbursement of expenses—not addressed by trial court—remanded for additional findings—In a child support action, the trial court's order was reversed and remanded for additional findings on defendant father's contention that plaintiff mother should reimburse him for forty percent of the cost of enrolling the parties' youngest son in a residential treatment program. Although the court had determined that the parties should both contribute to the program's costs, there was no indication in the record that the court addressed defendant's claim despite submission of evidence that defendant paid the full cost of enrollment. Madar v. Madar , 275 N.C. App. 600 (2020) (Author: Judge Wanda Bryant)

Child support—calculation—retroactive—Child Support Guidelines—The trial court did not err in a child custody dispute by using the Child Support Guidelines Worksheet to calculate the retroactive child support owed by the father, because the Guidelines specifically authorize the practice. Jonna v. Yaramada , 273 N.C. App. 93 (2020) (Author: Judge Valerie Zachary)

Child support—calculation—retroactive—findings—health insurance—Because the trial court's finding of fact regarding the father's past expenses for his child's health insurance coverage was not supported by competent evidence, the child support order was remanded for appropriate findings and recalculation of the father's retroactive child support obligation. Jonna v. Yaramada , 273 N.C. App. 93 (2020) (Author: Judge Valerie Zachary)

Child support—calculation—retroactive—childcare expenses—Child Support Guidelines—The Court of Appeals rejected a father's argument that daycare expenses incurred by the mother should not have been included in calculating the father's retroactive child support obligation (because, the father argued, his parents were willing to care for the child free of charge) where both parents were employed, the mother incurred the daycare cost due to her employment, and the father did not request that the the trial court deviate from the Child Support Guidelines. The trial court was not required to find that the costs were reasonably necessary because the support obligation was calculated in accordance with the Guidelines. Jonna v. Yaramada , 273 N.C. App. 93 (2020) (Author: Judge Valerie Zachary)

Child support—trial court's authority—parties to share W-2s—The trial court did not exceed its authority by ordering the parents in a child custody and support dispute to exchange their W-2s every year. Jonna v. Yaramada , 273 N.C. App. 93 (2020) (Author: Judge Valerie Zachary)

Child support—calculation—Worksheet B—extended international travel—To determine whether the use of Worksheet B was proper for calculating the father's prospective child support obligations, the child support order was vacated and remanded for additional findings on whether five-week trips to India were extended visitation or whether the custodial arrangement involved a true sharing of expenses. Jonna v. Yaramada , 273 N.C. App. 93 (2020) (Author: Judge Valerie Zachary)

Contempt order—required findings of fact—burden of proof—The trial court's order holding defendant in contempt for overdue child support was reversed and remanded where the court did not make required findings regarding whether defendant's failure to pay the overdue support was willful or addressing defendant's present ability to comply with the support order and, because the proceeding was not initiated by a judicial official, the court improperly placed the burden of proof on defendant. Price v. Biggs , 272 N.C. App. 315 (2020) (Author: Judge John Arrowood)

Child support modification order—adequate time to present case—abuse of discretion analysis—The trial court's order modifying defendant's child support obligations was reversed and remanded where the court abused its discretion by not allowing defendant adequate time to present his defense. Plaintiff was allowed nearly two hours and five minutes over two hearings to present her case but defendant was only allowed twenty-five minutes. Price v. Biggs , 272 N.C. App. 315 (2020) (Author: Judge John Arrowood)

Support order—section 50-13.4(c)—findings—In a non-guideline child support matter, the trial court did not abuse its discretion where it made sufficient findings pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 50-13.4(c) (which the father did not challenge as being unsupported by evidence) indicating it gave "due regard" to the parties' (approximately equal) estates, earnings, conditions, and accustomed standard of living, despite not using some of the statutory language. The court was not required to make detailed findings about each individual asset and liability of the parties, and the court's findings were supported by evidence in the form of testimony and the parties' financial affidavits. Kleoudis v. Kleoudis , 271 N.C. App. 35 (2020) (Author: Judge Donna Stroud)

Support order—expenses for child—trial court's determination—In a non-guideline child support matter, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in arriving at its total of the child's expenses where it explained its methodology, its findings were supported by evidence, and it took into account expenses attributed to the child on the father's financial affidavit. Some of the father's arguments would have actually led to a higher child support obligation than what was calculated. Kleoudis v. Kleoudis , 271 N.C. App. 35 (2020) (Author: Judge Donna Stroud)

Support order—father's expenses—determination based on affidavit—In a non-guideline child support matter, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in arriving at its total of the father's expenses, despite the father's argument that a portion of his household expenses should have been attributed to the child, because the trial court's determination on the father's ability to pay was based on all the expenses listed in the father's financial affidavit, and any reduction in the father's expenses could actually increase the amount he would be required to pay. Kleoudis v. Kleoudis , 271 N.C. App. 35 (2020) (Author: Judge Donna Stroud)

Support order—custodial schedule—findings—The trial court's findings in a child support order regarding the child's custodial schedule gave appropriate consideration to the amount of custodial time granted to the father in the permanent custody order. Kleoudis v. Kleoudis , 271 N.C. App. 35 (2020) (Author: Judge Donna Stroud)

Support order—arrears—miscalculation—de minimis—In a non-guideline child support matter, the trial court's miscalculation of one month's child support arrears owed by the father did not merit reversal where the de minimis error amounted to less than two percent of the father's total arrears. Kleoudis v. Kleoudis , 271 N.C. App. 35 (2020) (Author: Judge Donna Stroud)

Emancipation—moving out of home—judicial decree—The trial court erred by failing to order a father to pay past-due child support that accrued after his seventeen-year-old son moved out of his mother's home to live with another family. Pursuant to statute, a child must be judicially emancipated to terminate a parent's child support obligations. Morris v. Powell , 269 N.C. App. 496 (2020) (Author: Judge Lucy Inman)

Failure to pay child support—contempt of court—willfulness—child not living with custodial parent—The trial court did not err by declining to hold a father in contempt of court for failure to comply with his child support obligations where the court found that the father did not intend to willfully violate the order because he was under the mistaken apprehension that he could stop paying child support when his seventeen-year-old son moved out of his mother's home to live with another family. Morris v. Powell , 269 N.C. App. 496 (2020) (Author: Judge Lucy Inman)

Modification of child support—calculation—split custody worksheet—health insurance and childcare credits—In an action to modify child custody and support, where the trial court properly awarded primary custody of the parties' youngest son to the father and primary custody of their eldest son to the mother, the court properly calculated the father's support obligation using the "split custody" worksheet from the N.C. Child Support Guidelines. Nevertheless, the matter was remanded for the trial court to re-determine the appropriate health insurance and childcare credits the father should receive toward his support obligation. Deanes v. Deanes , 269 N.C. App. 151 (2020) (Author: Judge Tobias Hampson)

Child support order—from another state—Uniform Interstate Family Support Act—jurisdiction to enforce and modify—In a child support case originating in Washington, where a trial court in that state entered the initial support order and two more orders correcting the first, a North Carolina trial court had jurisdiction under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) to enforce and modify the father's child support obligation because both parents and their children resided in North Carolina when the father filed his motion to modify child support. Furthermore, where UIFSA requires an out-of-state order to be registered in North Carolina before a North Carolina court can modify it, the mother substantially complied with this requirement by registering the original support order and one of the corrected orders. Hart v. Hart , 268 N.C. App. 172 (2019) (Author: Judge Valerie Zachary)

Child support—modification—substantial change in circumstances—new custodial arrangement—In a child support case originating in another state, where the father relocated to North Carolina shortly after the mother moved there with the parties' three children, a North Carolina trial court did not abuse its discretion in modifying the father's child support obligation where the evidence revealed a substantial change in circumstances affecting the children's welfare. Specifically, the amount of time the children spent with the father increased significantly once they all lived in the same state and after the parties changed their custodial arrangement to one of shared custody. Hart v. Hart , 268 N.C. App. 172 (2019) (Author: Judge Valerie Zachary)

Child support amount—modification—calculation—deviation from guidelines—effective date—Where the trial court modified a father's child support obligation and granted him a credit for past support payments, the court did not abuse its discretion by deviating from the N.C. Child Support Guidelines when calculating the new amount of child support, because competent evidence showed that the parties' combined monthly gross income exceeded the maximum amount to which the Guidelines' support schedule applied. Furthermore, the decision to make the modification effective from the date on which the father filed his motion to modify fell squarely within the trial court's discretion. Hart v. Hart , 268 N.C. App. 172 (2019) (Author: Judge Valerie Zachary)

Child support—arrearages—contempt—relief for void orders—The Court of Appeals rejected a father's argument that he was entitled to relief pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 60(b)(4) from orders holding him in contempt for past violations of an earlier child support order. The orders were not void because the trial court had jurisdiction and the authority to sentence the father to the suspended 30-day sentence. Unger v. Unger , 268 N.C. App. 142 (2019) (Author: Chief Judge Chris Dillon)

Child support—arrearages—contempt—relief for fraud—The Court of Appeals rejected a father's argument that he was entitled to relief pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 60(b)(3) from orders holding him in contempt for past violations of an earlier child support order where the claim was time-barred by the one-year statute of limitations in Rule 60(b). Unger v. Unger , 268 N.C. App. 142 (2019) (Author: Chief Judge Chris Dillon)

Child support arrears—argument on appeal regarding amount—invited error—In an action involving past due child support, a mother's argument on appeal that the trial court miscalculated the amount of arrears was dismissed because the amount found by the trial court, $24,400, was specifically requested by the mother's counsel in his closing statement, making any error invited. Dillingham v. Ramsey , 267 N.C. App. 378 (2019) (Author: Judge Donna Stroud)

Child support arrears—lengthy period of repayment—ability to pay immediately—abuse of discretion—In a case involving a father's unilateral reduction in child support after two children reached the age of majority, the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the father to repay arrears at a rate of $100.00 per month, despite the father's high income and ability to immediately pay all of the arrears, because the full repayment would take more than 20 years. Further, the trial court's decision not to require interest amounted to granting the father an interest-free loan from the mother. The mother's delay in filing a motion to enforce the child support order and the father's voluntary payment of expenses for the adult children were not sufficient bases for the lengthy repayment schedule. Moreover, the mother was not required to request a specific monthly payment to challenge the repayment scheme on appeal. Dillingham v. Ramsey , 267 N.C. App. 378 (2019) (Author: Judge Donna Stroud)

Modification—existing order—requiring a different parent to pay support—The trial court did not err by exercising jurisdiction over a child support dispute where the trial court's order was a modification of an existing child support order, rather than an establishment of a new one. A child support order is not confined to the obligations of one specific parent, so the new order requiring plaintiff to make child support payments modified the existing order that required defendant to make child support payments. Watkins v. Benjamin , 267 N.C. App. 122 (2019) (Author: Judge Allegra Collins)

Support—monthly gross income—deductions—rental property expenses—A child support order was vacated and remanded for more specific findings regarding a father's rental property expenses where there was no indication that the trial court took into account the rental property's insurance and property tax expenditures when calculating gross monthly income. The Court of Appeals declined to remand for findings regarding imputation of rental income–based on the mother's argument that the father deliberately rented the property to his son below market value–because the mother did not raise the issue in the trial court. Thomas v. Burgett , 265 N.C. App. 364 (2019) (Author: Judge Lucy Inman)

Support—extraordinary expenses—after-school activity—speculative evidence—In calculating a father's child support obligation, the trial court's determination that his child required $500 per month for band expenditures was not based on competent evidence where the child had not yet been accepted to the honor band to which she had applied. If, on remand (for another issue), the trial court heard nonspeculative evidence from which it could determine the child was actually participating in the band, it was directed to make findings in support of any award based on those expenses. Thomas v. Burgett , 265 N.C. App. 364 (2019) (Author: Judge Lucy Inman)

Support—N.C. Child Support Guidelines—deviation—lack of requisite findings precluding review—The trial court failed to justify its deviation from the N.C. Child Support Guidelines–by deciding not to grant a father a credit for the social security payments received by the mother on behalf of the child–where the court did not make necessary findings regarding reasonable needs of the child for her health and maintenance relative to the well-being and accustomed standard of living of her and her parents, whether the presumptive support amount would exceed or not meet the reasonable needs of the child, and a calculation of the child's reasonable needs and expenses. Thomas v. Burgett , 265 N.C. App. 364 (2019) (Author: Judge Lucy Inman)

Substantial change of circumstances—settlement of Workers' Compensation claim—increase in child's expenses—The trial court did not err by concluding that a substantial change of circumstances warranted modification of defendant-father's ongoing child support obligation where defendant himself alleged a substantial change of circumstances resulting from the settlement of his workers' compensation claim and the termination of monthly temporary disability payments, and where the trial court's findings focused on defendant's allegations and the increase in the child's expenses for day care and health insurance. Simms v. Bolger , 264 N.C. App. 456 (2019) (Author: Judge Tobias Hampson)

Lump sum payment—from settlement funds—non-recurring income—The trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering defendant-father to make a lump sum child support payment from the settlement funds he received from a work-related accident, which constituted non-recurring income subject to the N.C. Child Support Guidelines. Simms v. Bolger , 264 N.C. App. 456 (2019) (Author: Judge Tobias Hampson)

Request for deviation from Child Support Guidelines—deviation not required—The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant-father's motion requesting a deviation from the N.C. Child Support Guidelines where defendant argued the Guidelines approach would exceed the reasonable needs of the child. Trial courts are not required to deviate from the Guidelines even when presented with compelling reasons to do so; further, the trial court made appropriate findings and concluded that application of the Guidelines would not be unjust or inappropriate. Simms v. Bolger , 264 N.C. App. 456 (2019) (Author: Judge Tobias Hampson)

Lump sum and monthly obligation—based on current income—impact on future income—The trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering defendant-father to pay child support that included both monthly payments and a lump sum payment where the trial court based its award on defendant's current income at the time of the hearing and there was no evidence on the impact the lump sum payment would have on defendant's future income. Simms v. Bolger , 264 N.C. App. 456 (2019) (Author: Judge Tobias Hampson)

Custodial savings account—surplus funds to child upon emancipation —The trial court erred by ordering defendant-father to pay a lump sum child support payment to establish a custodial savings account for the benefit of his child, which would result in surplus funds being directed to the child upon emancipation. The purpose of the state's child support statute is to provide support prior to the child's emancipation, not after. Simms v. Bolger , 264 N.C. App. 456 (2019) (Author: Judge Tobias Hampson)

Arrearages—use of past income—The trial court erred in calculating defendant-father's arrearage owed in child support by using defendant's income for each past year rather than by using defendant's current income at the time of the hearing, without making any finding to support the use of such a method. Simms v. Bolger , 264 N.C. App. 456 (2019) (Author: Judge Tobias Hampson)

Attorney fees—reasonableness and amount—The trial court did not abuse its discretion in a child support action by ordering defendant-father to pay plaintiff-mother attorney fees awards of $16,240 and $25,000 where the evidence supported the trial court's determinations as to the reasonableness and amount of the awards. Simms v. Bolger , 264 N.C. App. 456 (2019) (Author: Judge Tobias Hampson)

Civil contempt—failure to pay attorney fees during pendency of appeal—subject matter jurisdiction—In an action concerning child support, the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to hold defendant-father in civil contempt for failure to pay an award of attorney fees during the pendency of his appeal of the child support order. Simms v. Bolger , 264 N.C. App. 442 (2019) (Author: Judge Tobias Hampson)

IV-D child support—pending custody action—stay order—misapprehension of the law—The Court of Appeals reversed an order staying an IV-D child support action, holding that the trial court misapprehended the law–and, therefore, abused its discretion–by ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the child support claim while an appeal of the parties' Chapter 50 custody proceeding was pending. Additionally, the child support claim required a rehearing where the trial court erroneously combined the custody and child support actions and then entered a temporary child support order without jurisdiction to do so. Watauga Cty. o/b/o McKiernan v. Shell , 264 N.C. App. 608 (2019) (Author: Judge Donna Stroud)

Foreign support order—contested registration—misleading information—address—Plaintiff did not argue below that a notice of a hearing to contest a Swiss support order contained materially misleading information and it was not addressed on appeal. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining that the notice of the hearing was sent to the correct location; both the U.S. Office of Child Support Enforcement and the N.C. Department of Health and Human Services provide that notice in international support cases should be sent to the respective country or state agency, not sent directly to the individual parties. The Guilford County Child Support Enforcement Agency mailed the notice of hearing to the Swiss Central Authority. Gyger v. Clement , 263 N.C. App. 118 (2018) (Author: Judge Valerie Zachary)

Foreign support order—equities—Rule 60(b)(6)—notice—The trial court did not err by denying plaintiff's Rule 60(b)(6) motion in an action to enforce a Swiss child support order. Plaintiff ordered that the trial court's vacation of the registration order was inequitable because she never received notice of the hearing. Plaintiff had executed a limited power of attorney granting the N.C. Child Support Enforcement Agency the authority to represent her. Gyger v. Clement , 263 N.C. App. 118 (2018) (Author: Judge Valerie Zachary)

Civil contempt—findings of fact—ability to pay—The trial court's findings of fact were too minimal to support its conclusion that defendant father's failure to pay child support was willful. The bare findings that he owned a boat, car, and cell phone; that he spent money on gas and food; and that he had medical issues but was not prevented from working did not sufficiently indicate the necessary evaluation of defendant's actual income, asset values, and reasonable subsistence needs to support a conclusion that defendant had the present ability to pay both his child support obligations and purge payments for civil contempt. Cty. of Durham v. Burnette , 262 N.C. App. 17 (2018) (Author: Judge Donna Stroud)

Modification of custody—loss of job—imputed income—motion pending for four years—A child support order was remanded where the dispute began when the father lost his job, he continued to pay the required support until he eventually unilaterally reduced the payments, he engaged in a lengthy job search, he eventually accepted a job at a reduced salary, and he got married and bought a new car and house. The original motion was pending for four years and the Court of Appeals could not determine whether the trial court imputed income to the father and the basis of the imputation for each time period. The matter was remanded for correction of the erroneous date of the father's settlement with his prior employer along with related appropriate corrections, and for the basis for any imputations of income. Hill v. Hill , 261 N.C. App. 600 (2018) (Author: Judge Donna Stroud)

Support—modification—loss of job—depletion of estate—The trial court was not authorized to base a child support modification solely upon depletion of the husband's estate in a case in which a child support order was entered, the husband lost his job and engaged in a long job search during which he paid the child support obligation from his assets until his assets ran low, the husband eventually accepted a job at a lower salary, and four years elapsed from the motion to the hearing. Although depletion of the husband's estate may be a proper basis to establish an alimony obligation, the same is not necessarily true for child support. The case was remanded for findings to clarify whether the trial court was actually imputing income and the basis for imputing income. Hill v. Hill , 261 N.C. App. 600 (2018) (Author: Judge Donna Stroud)

Child support—frustration of appellate review—need for evidentiary hearing—failure to address all claims—The Court of Appeals vacated a child support order and remanded the matter for a new evidentiary hearing where the trial court failed to conduct sufficient evidentiary proceedings to support its findings and conclusions, made mathematical errors in its order, failed to address all of the mother's claims, and failed to make necessary findings for the mother's attorney fees claim. Crews v. Paysour , 261 N.C. App. 557 (2018) (Author: Judge Donna Stroud)

Support—parties' gross income—While it is well established that child support obligations are determined by a party's actual income at the time the order is made, evidence of past income can assist the trial court in determining current income where income is seasonal or highly variable. What matters is why the trial court examines past income; the findings must show that past income was used to accurately assess current income. Kaiser v. Kaiser , 259 N.C. App. 499 (2018) (Author: Judge Richard Dietz)

Support—capital gains—findings—A child support order did not contain sufficient findings to justify the use of a parent's past capital gains to calculate current, regular capital gains income. Capital gains are a highly variable type of income and income from past capital gains generally is a poor predictor of current, regular income from capital gains. If the trial court relies on past capital gains to calculate current, regular capital gains income, the court must establish that the party still owns capital assets of like kind to continue generating similar gains as in the past and that the party can reasonably be expected to continue realizing similar gains. Kaiser v. Kaiser , 259 N.C. App. 499 (2018) (Author: Judge Richard Dietz)

Support—parties' income—dividend income—A child support order was remanded where the trial court's findings about dividend income were not specific about sources, so that the Court of Appeals was not able to determine whether the trial court's calculation included dividends from assets that had been sold earlier and thus would not generate future dividend income. Kaiser v. Kaiser , 259 N.C. App. 499 (2018) (Author: Judge Richard Dietz)

Support—income of parent—loan from parents—The trial court did not err in a child support case by not treating as income payments the father received from his parents. The father testified that these payments were loans he was obligated to repay. The trial court's general findings concerning the father's income, which impliedly rejected defendant's argument, were sufficient. Kaiser v. Kaiser , 259 N.C. App. 499 (2018) (Author: Judge Richard Dietz)

Support—income of parent—fiance's payments—The trial court's findings in a child support case regarding amounts paid by the mother's fiance, a cohabitant, were not sufficient to categorize the fiance's payments as part of the mother's gross income. The trial court needed to resolve the conflicting evidence as to whether the payments were to help the mother in paying her own household expenses (maintenance), a sublease rental payment, or the fiance's share of the household expenses. Maintenance and rental income would be income to the mother, but the fiance's payment of his share of expenses would not be. Kaiser v. Kaiser , 259 N.C. App. 499 (2018) (Author: Judge Richard Dietz)

Support—parent's income—income from stock account—The trial court did not err in a child support action by treating the income from a stock market account as part of the mother's gross income even though she argued that the parties had agreed in the equitable distribution agreement that the account belonged to the mother's father. At the time of the child support order, the account was in her name, she paid the taxes on the dividends, and there was no evidence that she was unable to use the income from the account if she wished to. Kaiser v. Kaiser , 259 N.C. App. 499 (2018) (Author: Judge Richard Dietz)

Support—child therapy expenses—The trial court did not abuse its discretion in a child support case by denying defendant's request to recover past and future expenses for child therapy as part of the father's child support obligations. There was at least some competent evidence to support the trial court's finding that the mother created the need for the therapy. Kaiser v. Kaiser , 259 N.C. App. 499 (2018) (Author: Judge Richard Dietz)

Support—car payments—credits—finding not sufficient—The trial court abused its discretion in a child support action by awarding the father a credit for payments toward the mother's car. The trial court would have been within its discretion in awarding the credit had it made the required finding that an injustice would occur if the credit were not allowed, but it did not do so. Kaiser v. Kaiser , 259 N.C. App. 499 (2018) (Author: Judge Richard Dietz)

Child custody—sua sponte modification—no motion to modify—The trial court erred in a child custody modification case by making a sua sponte modification of defendant father's child support obligation where neither party had filed a motion to modify child support prior to the entry of a later order. Some action is required by the parties in order to satisfy the underlying purpose of N.C.G.S. § 50-13.7(a). Summerville v. Summerville , 259 N.C. App. 228 (2018) (Author: Judge Mark Davis)

Child support—complaint dismissed—The trial court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing plaintiff's complaint for child support through Durham County Child Support Services where the parties had a separation agreement and there had not been a substantial change in circumstances affecting the welfare of the child. Plaintiff did not cite North Carolina case law or statute in arguing that he was denied his right to seek a child support order; federal law is not binding on the Court of Appeals. Durham Cty. ex rel. Adams v. Adams , 258 N.C. App. 395 (2018) (Author: Judge Robert Hunter, Jr.)

Plaintiff's income—consideration—The trial court did not err by referencing plaintiff's income since that information was relevant to plaintiff's claim for child support. Durham Cty. ex rel. Adams v. Adams , 258 N.C. App. 395 (2018) (Author: Judge Robert Hunter, Jr.)

Separation agreement—incorporation into divorce decree—In an action by plaintiff through Durham County Child Support Services for child support, there was no evidence to show that the trial court failed to properly incorporate a separation agreement into a divorce order. Plaintiff admitted that he asked for the separation agreement, which stated that the parties would share child care expenses equally, to be made a part of the divorce decree. Durham Cty. ex rel. Adams v. Adams , 258 N.C. App. 395 (2018) (Author: Judge Robert Hunter, Jr.)

Calculation—annuity—early withdrawal penalty—The trial court did not abuse its discretion by including defendant husband's annuity among defendant's potential sources of income in its orders for child support and alimony. Defendant failed to establish that the terms of the orders, considered separately or together, would require him to cash in the annuity and incur a withdrawal penalty. Kabasan v. Kabasan , 257 N.C. App. 436 (2018) (Author: Judge Valerie Zachary)

Child support order—additional income from investments—The trial court did not abuse its discretion in a child support order by "imputing" additional income to defendant father based on its finding that defendant was deferring income in bad faith with naive indifference to the reasonable needs of the child for the purpose of minimizing his support obligation. A trial court has the discretion to consider all sources of a parent's income and is not required to make findings that will support imputation of income before considering income from investments. Kabasan v. Kabasan , 257 N.C. App. 436 (2018) (Author: Judge Valerie Zachary)

Child support modification—failure to reduce amount—unincorporated separation agreement—specific performance—The trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to reduce child support established in an unincorporated separation agreement where defendant wife did not consent to the modification and public policy only required the court to insure that the amount of child support was adequate to meet the needs of the children. Further, plaintiff husband only challenged those portions of the 14 June 2016 order on remand that required specific performance, and the portion of the order awarding defendant $46,480.71 in money damages did not involve specific performance. Lasecki v. Lasecki , 257 N.C. App. 24 (2017) (Author: Judge Linda McGee)

Overpayment of child support—reduction in calculation of total arrearage—The trial court did not err in a child custody case by concluding that plaintiff husband already received credit for his overpayment of child support in the form of a reduction in the trial court's calculation of his total child support arrearage. Lasecki v. Lasecki , 257 N.C. App. 24 (2017) (Author: Judge Linda McGee)

Child support—deviation from guidelines—findings—Although a trial court's child support orders are afforded substantial deference, the trial court in this case failed to make the requisite findings to support deviation from the Child Support Guidelines. Sarno v. Sarno , 255 N.C. App. 543 (2017) (Author: Judge Robert Hunter, Jr.)

Overpayment—findings not supported by evidence—The evidence did not support a credit for overpayment of child support where neither plaintiff nor defendant testified; counsel's arguments are not evidence. Sarno v. Sarno , 255 N.C. App. 543 (2017) (Author: Judge Robert Hunter, Jr.)

Child support—calculation—tax returns—The trial court did not err by its calculation of defendant mother's income for purposes of calculating her child support obligations. Although plaintiff dad proffered an alternative income computation model, the trial court chose to give greater weight to the information contained in defendant's tax returns. Sergeef v. Sergeef , 250 N.C. App. 404 (2016) (Author: Judge Wendy Enochs)

Retroactive child support—calculation—extraordinary expenses—The trial court erred by failing to follow the North Carolina Child Support Guidelines when computing defendant mom's child support obligation to plaintiff dad. The trial court failed to enter the basic child support obligation required by line item 4. Further, the trial court's order regarding the minor son's extraordinary expenses was vacated and remanded to the trial court to make additional findings of fact and to recalculate the amount of retroactive child support in light of its additional findings. Sergeef v. Sergeef , 250 N.C. App. 404 (2016) (Author: Judge Wendy Enochs)

Retroactive child support—findings of fact—shared custody—The trial court erred in a child support case by its finding of fact that since August 2013, the parties have shared custody of their minor daughter equally. This portion of the order was remanded to the trial court for the limited purpose of recalculating the amount of retroactive child support plaintiff dad was entitled to recover from defendant mother. Sergeef v. Sergeef , 250 N.C. App. 404 (2016) (Author: Judge Wendy Enochs)

Support—calculation—not clear—A child support order was remanded where it lacked sufficient information for the calculation to be reviewed on appeal. Lueallen v. Lueallen , 249 N.C. App. 292 (2016) (Author: Judge Donna Stroud)

Support—imputed income—no error—While there was evidence that the mother in a child support action was seeking employment, the evidence supported the trial court's determination that she was acting in disregard of her child support obligation. The findings supported the trial court's conclusions that the mother was willfully suppressing her income to avoid her income to avoid her child support obligation in bad faith, and the trial court properly imputed income to the mother. Lueallen v. Lueallen , 249 N.C. App. 292 (2016) (Author: Judge Donna Stroud)

—support—arrearage—upcoming payment included—The findings did not support the arrearage decree in a child support order where the arrearage included an upcoming support payment. The order may address any arrears accrued up to the last day of the trial, based on evidence presented at trial. Lueallen v. Lueallen , 249 N.C. App. 292 (2016) (Author: Judge Donna Stroud)

Support—arrearages—calculation unclear—In a child support case remanded on other grounds, it was suggested as a practical matter that the calculation of arrears be set forth in a table where the appellate court could get the math in the findings to work. Lueallen v. Lueallen , 249 N.C. App. 292 (2016) (Author: Judge Donna Stroud)

Support—arrearage—contempt—failure to find job—bad faith—In a contempt proceeding arising from an arrearage in child support, the findings that the mother had the ability to comply with the order but willfully failed to do so were supported by the evidence. The dispute arose from the ending of the the mother's temporary job filling in for a teacher out on maternity leave and her failure to find another job. Lueallen v. Lueallen , 249 N.C. App. 292 (2016) (Author: Judge Donna Stroud)

Support—modification—contention dismissed—Defendant's contention that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to modify child support in a June order was dismissed where the trial court modified lowered plaintiff's child support obligation in a March order and did not modify child support in June. Nguyen v. Heller-Nguyen , 248 N.C. App. 228 (2016) (Author: Judge Robert Hunter, Jr.)

Child in DSS custody—support—findings—not sufficient—The trial court erred by ordering a mother to pay child support where it failed to make the required findings as to a reasonable sum and the mother's ability to pay. In re: A.M. & E.R. , No. COA15-1035 (N.C. App. Jun. 7, 2016) (Author: Judge Linda McGee)

High income parent—private school tuition—In a case of first impression, the trial court did not err by concluding that a high income plaintiff should continue to pay his children's private school tuition where the children had been consistently enrolled in private school, the parties' continual desire was to educate their children in private schools, and the parties' income exceeded the level set by the Child Support Guidelines. A trial court can require a higher income parent to pay his children's private school tuition without a specific showing that his children needed the advantages offered by private schooling; a child's reasonable needs are not limited to absolutely necessary items if the parents can afford to pay more to maintain the accustomed standard of living of the child. Smith v. Smith , No. COA15-185 (N.C. App. Apr. 19, 2016) (Author: Judge Martha Geer)

Private school tuition—father capable of paying—Whether the parties had previously used defendant's inheritance to pay their children's private school tuition was irrelevant to their present ability to pay in a child support action where the father was ordered to continue paying private school tuition for his children. The trial court's findings, binding on appeal, were specific enough to support the conclusion that plaintiff was capable of paying his children's tuition. Smith v. Smith , No. COA15-185 (N.C. App. Apr. 19, 2016) (Author: Judge Martha Geer)

Retroactive private school tuition—UTMA accounts—The trial court did not err in a child support action by ordering plaintiff to pay retroactive private school tuition to defendant where at least some of the money was paid by defendant from the children's Uniform Transfers to Minors Act (UTMA) accounts. The trial court ordered that defendant reimburse the UTMA accounts upon receipt of the child support award from plaintiff. Smith v. Smith , No. COA15-185 (N.C. App. Apr. 19, 2016) (Author: Judge Martha Geer)

Retroactive—findings—An order for retroactive child support was remanded for recalculation where there was an inconsistency in the trial court's findings. Smith v. Smith , No. COA15-185 (N.C. App. Apr. 19, 2016) (Author: Judge Martha Geer)

Retroactive child support—partial payment—basis—The trial court erred in a child support action by ordering defendant to pay 25 percent of the children's school tuition without making findings explaining its basis for the 25 percent figure. Smith v. Smith , No. COA15-185 (N.C. App. Apr. 19, 2016) (Author: Judge Martha Geer)

Retroactive support—inconsistent testimony—other supporting evidence—The trial court did not err when ordering retroactive child support where plaintiff argued that defendant's testimony had been inconsistent and skewed, but the inconsistency went to credibility, and evidence before the trial court otherwise established the subject of the evidence. Smith v. Smith , No. COA15-185 (N.C. App. Apr. 19, 2016) (Author: Judge Martha Geer)

Retroactive child support—change of custodial arrangement—corresponding findings of fact—The trial court did not err in a child support case in its award of retroactive child support where plaintiff argued that a change in the custodial arrangement meant that some of defendant's evidence about expenditures did not reflect amounts spent after that time, but defendant testified repeatedly to the static nature of the shared and individual expenses of her children and that she had taken into account any increase or decrease that may have occurred. The trial court made corresponding findings of fact. Smith v. Smith , No. COA15-185 (N.C. App. Apr. 19, 2016) (Author: Judge Martha Geer)

Inconsistent findings—remanded—A child support order was remanded where the trial court's intent, as suggested by one finding, was inconsistent with another finding that was reflected in the conclusion. Smith v. Smith , No. COA15-185 (N.C. App. Apr. 19, 2016) (Author: Judge Martha Geer)

Amount previously paid—The trial court did not err in a child support action by failing to credit to plaintiff an amount previously paid where plaintiff testified that the payment represented the computation of defendant's share of the October distribution of marital assets minus expenses. Smith v. Smith , No. COA15-185 (N.C. App. Apr. 19, 2016) (Author: Judge Martha Geer)

Prospective support award—findings—no mention of defendant's inheritance—remanded—A prospective child support award was remanded where the trial court's findings lacked any mention of defendant's inheritance. Without specific findings of fact addressing this inheritance, the Court of Appeals could not determine whether the trial court gave due regard to the factors enumerated in N.C.G.S. § 50-13.4(c). Smith v. Smith , No. COA15-185 (N.C. App. Apr. 19, 2016) (Author: Judge Martha Geer)

Support—plaintiff's contribution—religious contribution—loan repayment—no conclusion as to reasonableness—The trial court did not err in a child support case where there was no specific conclusion as to the reasonableness of plaintiff's religious contributions or a loan repayment, but the trial court's ultimate conclusion as to plaintiff's reasonable expenses were supported by its findings of fact. Smith v. Smith , No. COA15-185 (N.C. App. Apr. 19, 2016) (Author: Judge Martha Geer)

Shared custody—evidence and findings—Challenged findings in a child support and custody case were supported by competent evidence, and the findings supported the conclusion that an equally shared custodial arrangement was in the best interest of the children. Smith v. Smith , No. COA15-185 (N.C. App. Apr. 19, 2016) (Author: Judge Martha Geer)

Child support order—enforceable during pendency of appeal—Where plaintiff-father requested emergency relief from a permanent child support order that required him to pay his children's private school tuition, the Court of Appeals rejected plaintiff's argument that the trial court was without jurisdiction to hold him in contempt for violating that order during the pendency of his appeal. Pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 50-13.4(f)(9), the order of child support requiring periodic payments toward his children's school tuition was enforceable during the pendency of the appeal. Smith v. Smith , No. COA15-331 (N.C. App. Apr. 19, 2016) (Author: Judge Martha Geer)

Child support order—cross—appeal by mother—enforceable—Where plaintiff-father requested emergency relief from a permanent child support order that required him to pay his children's private school tuition, the Court of Appeals rejected plaintiff's argument that defendant-mother's cross-appeal of that order precluded her from enforcing it. Defendant cross-appealed the order only with respect to the requirement that she reimburse plaintiff for 25 percent of the tuition after plaintiff paid it in full and on time. The Court of Appeals could conceive of no justification for precluding defendant from enforcing plaintiff's court-ordered obligation to pay his children's school tuition on time. Smith v. Smith , No. COA15-331 (N.C. App. Apr. 19, 2016) (Author: Judge Martha Geer)

Contempt order—bond to stay enforcement—Where the trial court denied plaintiff-father's motion to stay the execution of a permanent child support order requiring him to pay his children's private school tuition and held him in contempt for failing to pay the tuition pursuant to the order, the Court of Appeals rejected plaintiff's argument that the trial court erred in failing to set a bond to stay enforcement of the private school tuition directive pursuant to Rule 62(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and N.C.G.S. § 1-289. By acknowledging that child support was excepted from this process because the children affected had nothing to do with the disputes between the two parties, the trial court appropriately exercised its discretion in refusing to set a bond pending appeal of the order requiring plaintiff to pay child support. Smith v. Smith , No. COA15-331 (N.C. App. Apr. 19, 2016) (Author: Judge Martha Geer)

Contempt order—findings and conclusions supported—purge condition—Where the trial court denied plaintiff-father's motion to stay the execution of a permanent child support order requiring him to pay his children's private school tuition and held him in contempt for failing to pay the tuition pursuant to the order, the Court of Appeals affirmed the contempt order. The trial court's conclusions of law were adequately supported by competent findings of fact, which were supported by competent evidence, and there was no merit to plaintiff's argument that the purge condition was erroneous. Smith v. Smith , No. COA15-331 (N.C. App. Apr. 19, 2016) (Author: Judge Martha Geer)

Motion to modify—changed circumstances converted sua sponte into fraud—insufficient notice—The trial court abused its discretion in a child support enforcement action by using a a sua sponte motion to convert defendant's motion to modify child support due to changed circumstances into a Rule 60 motion for modification based on fraud. Plaintiff was entirely without notice that the issue of fraud would be addressed at the hearing. St. Peter v. Lyon , No. COA15-332 (N.C. App. Apr. 19, 2016) (Author: Judge Donna Stroud)

Defendant's motion for modification—In a child support enforcement action reversed on other grounds, the trial court was ordered to base its ruling only on defendant's motion for modification. St. Peter v. Lyon , No. COA15-332 (N.C. App. Apr. 19, 2016) (Author: Judge Donna Stroud)