Key Takeaways from the North Carolina Court of Appeals

At Batch, Poore & Williams, PC, we make it our business to stay on top of appellate decisions that shape how family law is practiced in North Carolina. Below, we summarize eight opinions from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, all filed on June 18, 2025, that clarify key issues in domestic violence, child custody, alimony, support, and equitable distribution. While these cases are not binding precedent, they offer valuable guidance in trial practice and strategy.

1. Woodruff v. Martin, No. COA24-1110 (N.C. Ct. App. June 18, 2025)

The Court vacated a domestic violence protective order (DVPO) entered after a father was seated in his ex-wife’s section at a restaurant. Although she reported discomfort, she testified the incident was not dramatic, no threats were made, and he had not known she was working. The Court found no competent evidence of harassment sufficient to cause substantial emotional distress.

Key Takeaway: Feelings of discomfort, without more, are not enough for a DVPO under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50B-1.

2. McMillan v. McMillan, No. COA24-850 (N.C. Ct. App. June 18, 2025)

In a schooling dispute, the Court affirmed an order transferring two homeschooled children back to public school after finding they were academically behind. Despite the mother’s diligent efforts, the trial court concluded the children’s IEPs and academic needs justified re-enrollment in public school.

Key Takeaway: Homeschooling may be revoked if the child’s welfare demands academic intervention unavailable at home.

3. Lonano v. Murphy, No. COA24-256 (N.C. Ct. App. June 18, 2025)

The Court remanded a denied DVPO petition due to the trial court’s failure to make findings of fact. The plaintiff alleged a history of violence and disturbing messages from jail, but the court dismissed without written findings as required by Rule 52.

Key Takeaway: Trial courts must enter written findings even when denying relief in 50B proceedings.

4. Cauley v. Cauley, No. COA24-200 (N.C. Ct. App. June 18, 2025)

The Court vacated a $75,000 attorney’s fee award against a plaintiff who had voluntarily dismissed a 50B claim. The court had lost jurisdiction by the time the fees were awarded and improperly relied on statutes (N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 50B-3, 50A-312) that did not apply.

Key Takeaway: A trial court may not award attorney’s fees once jurisdiction over a claim has lapsed.

Call Us Today: (919) 870-0466

Call Now

5. Collins v. Holley, No. COA24-516 (N.C. Ct. App. June 18, 2025)

A contempt order incarcerating a mother for failure to pay attorney’s fees was vacated. The Court found the trial court failed to make adequate findings about her ability to pay and erroneously imposed automatic incarceration provisions without assessing willfulness.

Key Takeaway: Civil contempt requires detailed findings of willfulness and ability to comply; punitive contempt standards cannot be presumed.

6. Holland v. Holland, No. COA24-791 (N.C. Ct. App. June 18, 2025)

The Court affirmed a military pension division awarding 24.77% to the ex-wife and $50,111.73 in back payments, rejecting the ex-husband’s laches defense. Even though the pension claim was not filed until years after divorce, it had been explicitly reserved by consent judgment.

Key Takeaway: Pension division claims may be enforced years later if preserved in the original equitable distribution judgment.

7. Sessoms v. Ray, No. COA23-919 (N.C. Ct. App. June 18, 2025)

The Court vacated a postseparation support (PSS) order because the wife’s prior alimony claim had been involuntarily dismissed with prejudice. Under Rule 41(b), her new claim for PSS could not proceed since alimony had been resolved on the merits and not appealed.

Key Takeaway: A dismissed-with-prejudice alimony claim bars a later PSS request—regardless of intent to refile.

8. Theuerkorn v. Heller, No. COA24-715 (N.C. Ct. App. June 18, 2025)

The trial court’s amendment correcting a blank alimony amount was upheld as a clerical fix under Rule 60(a). However, the alimony and child support awards were vacated because the trial court failed to make adequate findings about the parties’ income and expenses.

Key Takeaway: Support orders must be based on detailed findings about actual income and needs; boilerplate isn’t enough.

9. Robeson County DSS v. Moore

In this case, our firm won an appeal representing the father who sought to modify his existing child support obligation due to major life changes, including his discharge from the U.S. Army and a significant drop in income. While, the trial court reduced his obligation it still exceeded the amount our client would have been required to pay under the child support guidelines and it failed to provide the necessary factual and legal support to justify its decision. On appeal, we successfully argued that the trial court’s order lacked the critical findings required by North Carolina law.

The Court of Appeals agreed with our position and issued a ruling that vacated the trial court’s order and remanded the case for a new decision, instructing the lower court to include appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law to support any changes to the child support amount.

Conclusion

These recent opinions underscore the importance of precision—both in trial advocacy and judicial decision-making. Whether it’s ensuring proper factual findings for support awards or preserving jurisdiction to award fees, the Court of Appeals remains vigilant in protecting procedural and substantive fairness in family law cases.

If you are navigating divorce, custody, or support issues in North Carolina, Batch, Poore & Williams, PC offers experienced, evidence-based representation to guide you forward.