Hands v. Hands

1

DAVID W. HANDS, Plaintiff, v. TYYAWDI M. HANDS, Defendant

No. COA24-19

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

September 17, 2024

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Heard in the Court of Appeals 15 May 2024.

Appeal by Plaintiff from Orders entered 9 June 2023, 6 July 2023 and 11 July 2023 by Judge Dennis J. Redwing in Mecklenburg County No. 20 CVD 15708 District Court.

Justice in Action Law Center, by Alesha S. Brown, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Tin Fulton Walker &Owen, PLLC, by Zachary Ezor, for Defendant-Appellee.

OPINION

HAMPSON, Judge.

Factual and Procedural Background

David W. Hands (Plaintiff) appeals from an Order Re: Contempt Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Change Venue, and Order denying Plaintiff's Motions under Rule 52 and Rule 59. The Record before us tends to reflect the following:

Plaintiff and Tyyawdi M. Hands (Defendant) were married on 6 September 2008 and had two children during the marriage. On or about 15 October 2019, the parties separated. Plaintiff initiated this suit by filing a Complaint for Equitable Distribution in Mecklenburg County on 20 November 2020. On 25 November 2020, Defendant filed an Answer as well as counterclaims, including a claim for child support. The case was initially assigned to a Mecklenburg County District Court judge; however, at the parties' joint request, the matter was reassigned to the Honorable Dennis J. Redwing of Gaston County. The parties were granted a divorce on 30 November 2020. They agreed to equitable distribution by consent judgment and to a custody arrangement; however, they did not reach an agreement on child support and so proceeded to trial on that issue.

During discovery, Plaintiff failed to timely comply with some discovery requests and provided "severely deficient" responses to other requests. Plaintiff failed to appear for his scheduled deposition on 3 May 2021. In response, Defendant filed a Motion to Compel and a Motion for Sanctions the same day. The trial court heard arguments on Defendant's Motions on 15 March 2022. On 18 March 2022, the trial court granted Defendant's Motion to Compel, ordering Plaintiff to attend a rescheduled deposition and reimburse Defendant for related attorney fees and costs totaling $2,311.00. In its Order, the trial court made Findings of Fact detailing Plaintiff's unexcused absence from his deposition and the costs Defendant incurred as a result.

On 3 August 2022, Plaintiff filed an abbreviated financial affidavit in violation of Local Rules. In response, Defendant filed a Motion in Limine on 12 August 2022. On 15 August 2022, Defendant's child support claim came on for trial. At trial, the trial court granted Defendant's Motion in Limine and, as a sanction for discovery violations and violations of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules, precluded Plaintiff from presenting evidence about his expenses, including expenses related to the minor children.

On 28 October 2022, the trial court entered an Order Re: Permanent Child Support and Attorney's Fees (the 28 October Order). In the 28 October Order, the trial court made over 150 Findings of Fact detailing, among other matters, both parties' finances, Plaintiff's discovery and Rules violations, the needs and expenses of the minor children, and how the trial court calculated expenses and income. It also ordered Plaintiff to pay Defendant child support in the amount of $2,785.09 per month effective 1 January 2022, as well as child support arrears and attorney fees.

On 7 November 2022, Plaintiff filed Motions for New Trial, Amendment of Findings, Additional Findings, and Amendment of Judgment pursuant to Rule 52(b) and Rule 59 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. In response, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss, Motion for Sanctions, and Motion for Contempt and Attorney's Fees on 28 December 2022. On 17 March 2023, Plaintiff additionally filed a Motion to Change Venue and Motion to Modify Child Support. Defendant again filed a Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Sanctions. On 19 April 2023, the trial court issued an Order to Show Cause. Defendant filed an Amended Motion for Contempt on 25 May 2023. The trial court issued a Second Order to Show Cause the same day.

On 30 and 31 May 2023, the trial court held hearings to address the pending Motions. During the hearing on Defendant's Motion for Contempt, Plaintiff argued he had not paid the full amount of child support owed because he could not afford to. Plaintiff attempted to introduce evidence about his income and expenses, purporting to show Plaintiff's income was lower than the trial court had found in its 28 October Order. Defendant objected, arguing the trial court had already established Plaintiff's income, "[a]nd until there's a modification, his income is as reflected in the Court's [O]rder." Further, "the Court determined what [Plaintiff's] income was and his ability to pay was and effectively re-litigating that issue isn't appropriate for contempt." The trial court sustained Defendant's objection and precluded Plaintiff from testifying about the new financial affidavit he had filed a week before the hearing, as well as expenses not listed on his original 2022 financial affidavit. Over the two days of hearings, the trial court also heard arguments on Plaintiff's Rule 52(b) and Rule 59 Motions, Motion to Change Venue, and Motion to Modify Child Support.

On 9 June 2023, the trial court entered an Order Re: Contempt, holding Plaintiff in civil contempt and ordering him to pay Defendant $44,652.24, "consisting of $11,175.45 in unpaid child support. . .; $4,570.18 in additional child support arrears . . .; $8,982.61 in unpaid child support arrears . . .; $7,000 in unpaid attorney's fees awarded to Defendant/Mother under the Order . . .; and $12,924.00 in reasonable attorneys' fees related to the prosecution of Defendant/Mother's Motion for Contempt[.]" On 6 July 2023, the trial court denied Plaintiff's Motion to Change Venue. Plaintiff filed Notice of Appeal from the trial court's Order Re: Contempt and Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Change Venue the next day. On 11 July 2023, the trial court entered an Order denying Plaintiff's Motions under Rule 52(b) and Rule 59. On 14 July 2023, Plaintiff filed Notice of Appeal from that Order.

Issues

The issues on appeal are whether the trial court erred by: (I) granting Defendant's Motion in Limine; (II) denying Plaintiff's Rule 52 and Rule 59 Motions; (III) holding Plaintiff in civil contempt and awarding attorney fees to Defendant; and (IV) denying Plaintiff's Motion to Change Venue.

Analysis

At the outset, we note Plaintiff does not appeal from the underlying 28 October Order, which calculated his income, granted Defendant's Motion in Limine, and awarded child support and attorney fees to Defendant. Consequently, with respect to several of his arguments addressed below, Plaintiff is limited to challenging the trial court's decision not to revisit determinations made in that Order.

I. Defendant's Motion in Limine

To properly contextualize Plaintiff's claims, we begin with Defendant's Motion in Limine. Plaintiff argues the trial court abused its discretion in declining to revisit its decision to grant Defendant's Motion in Limine. We disagree.

Rule 37 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a court may impose sanctions on a party for discovery violations. The statute provides:

If a party . . . fails (i) to appear before the person who is to take the deposition, after being served with a proper notice, . . . the court in which the action is pending on motion may make such orders in regard to the failure as are just, and among others it may take any action authorized under subdivisions a, b, and c of subsection (b)(2) of this rule.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 37(d) (2023). Such sanctions include "[a]n order refusing to allow the disobedient party to support or oppose designated claims or defenses, or prohibiting the party from introducing designated matters in evidence[.]" N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 37(b)(2)(b) (2023).

"[T]he trial judge has broad discretion in imposing sanctions to compel discovery under Rule 37." F.E. Davis Plumbing Co. v. Ingleside W. Assocs., 37 N.C.App. 149, 153, 245 S.E.2d 555, 557, cert. denied, 295 N.C. 648, 248 S.E.2d 250 (1978) (citation omitted). "[T]he imposition of particular sanctions under Rule 37(d) is subject to the sound discretion of the trial judge." Batlle v. Sabates, 198 N.C.App. 407, 418, 681 S.E.2d 788, 796 (2009) (citing Hammer v. Allison, 20 N.C.App. 623, 627, 202 S.E.2d 307, 309, cert. denied, 285 N.C. 233, 204 S.E.2d 23 (1974) and Hursey v. Homes by Design, Inc., 121 N.C.App. 175, 177, 464 S.E.2d 504, 505 (1995)). "This Court reviews the trial court's action in granting sanctions pursuant to Rule 37 . . . for abuse of discretion." Fayetteville Publ'g Co. v. Advanced Internet Techs., Inc., 192 N.C.App. 419, 424, 665 S.E.2d 518, 522 (2008) (citing Baker v. Charlotte Motor Speedway, Inc., 180 N.C.App. 296, 299, 636 S.E.2d 829, 831 (2006)). An abuse of discretion occurs where "a decision is manifestly unsupported by reason, or so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision." Stephens v. Stephens, 213 N.C.App. 495, 503, 715 S.E.2d 168, 174 (2011) (citation omitted).

On 12 August 2022, Defendant filed a Motion in Limine to prohibit Plaintiff "from presenting any testimony, evidence, or arguments to the Court regarding his or the parties' minor children's expenses, and rental property expenses in...