Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Crews v. Crews

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

March 5, 2019

LISA DAWN CREWS, Plaintiff,
v.
JAMES SCOTT CREWS, Defendant.

          Heard in the Court of Appeals 17 October 2018.

          Appeal by defendant from order entered 19 July 2017 by Judge J. Rodwell Penry, Jr. in District Court, Davidson County No. 17 CVD 95.

          Jon W. Myers, for plaintiff-appellee.

          Woodruff Law Firm, P.A., by Jessica S. Bullock and Carolyn J. Woodruff, for defendant-appellant.

          STROUD, JUDGE.

         Defendant appeals an order enforcing the Separation Agreement he had entered into with plaintiff. Because the trial court's findings support its conclusions regarding the enforceability of the Separation Agreement and its order requiring specific performance of Husband's alimony obligation, we affirm.

         I. Background

         On 21 July 2016, plaintiff-wife filed a verified complaint against defendant-husband alleging that the parties had separated in February of 2016 and had entered into a Separation and Property Settlement agreement on 4 March 2016. Wife alleged Husband had breached the Agreement by failing to timely pay his alimony obligation and that he had paid only once or twice since entry of the Agreement. On 25 January 2017, Husband answered Wife's complaint, denying the substantive allegations; he counterclaimed for rescission of the Agreement based upon fraud in the inducement, material breach of contract by Wife, and attorney fees. Husband alleged Wife had concealed sexual relationships and failed to disclose material assets. Husband alleged duress, unfairness, and unconscionability as to the Agreement. Husband also alleged that even if the Agreement was valid, his obligation to pay alimony was terminated by Wife's cohabitation with another man. Husband claimed Wife had breached the Agreement by her failure to return twenty items of personal property which were listed in the counterclaim.

         On 30 March 2017, Husband filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court denied Husband's motion for summary judgement and heard all pending claims and counterclaims. On 19 July 2017, the trial court entered an order denying summary judgment; concluding that the Separation Agreement was enforceable, Husband had breached the Agreement, and Wife had not breached the Agreement; and ordering specific performance of Husband's alimony obligation. Husband appealed.

         II. Specific Performance

         Defendant makes three arguments regarding specific performance. Husband does not challenge the findings of fact as unsupported by the evidence, but contends that the findings of fact are not sufficient to support the trial court's conclusions of law. "The remedy of specific performance rests in the sound discretion of the trial court and is conclusive on appeal absent a showing of a palpable abuse of discretion." Lasecki v. Lasecki, 246 N.C.App. 518, 540, 786 S.E.2d 286, 302 (2016) (citation, quotation marks, and brackets omitted).

To receive specific performance, the law requires the moving party to prove that (i) the remedy at law is inadequate, (ii) the obligor can perform, and (iii) the obligee has performed her obligations. We now elaborate on each of these requirements.
First, the movant must prove the legal remedy is inadequate. In Moore, our Supreme Court clarified that:
an adequate remedy is not a partial remedy. It is a full and complete remedy, and one that is accommodated to the wrong which is to be redressed by it. It is not enough that there is some remedy at law; it must be as practical and as efficient to the ends of justice and its prompt administration as the remedy in equity.
For separation agreements, Moore established that damages are usually an inadequate remedy because:
the plaintiff must wait until payments have become due and the obligor has failed to comply. Plaintiff must then file suit for the amount of accrued arrearage, reduce her claim to judgment, and, if the defendant fails to satisfy it, secure satisfaction by execution. As is so often the case, when the defendant persists in his refusal to comply, the plaintiff must resort to this remedy repeatedly to secure her rights under the agreement as the payments become due and the defendant fails to comply. The expense and delay involved in this remedy at law is evident.
In this context, even one missed payment can indicate the remedy at law is inadequate.
Second, the movant must prove the obligor has the ability to perform. To meet this burden, the movant need not necessarily present direct evidence of the obligee's current income. For instance, the movant can meet her burden by showing the obligee has depressed his income to avoid payment. Additionally, if the obligor has offered evidence tending to show that he is unable to fulfill his obligation under a separation agreement, the trial judge must make findings of fact concerning the defendant's ability to carry out the terms of the agreement before ordering specific performance.
Third, the movant must prove she has not breached the terms of the separation agreement. Still, general contract principles recognize that immaterial breaches do not eliminate the possibility of specific performance.

Reeder v. Carter, 226 N.C.App. 270, 275-76, 740 S.E.2d 913, 917-18 (2013) (citations, quotation marks, ellipses, and brackets omitted). Defendant challenges all prongs supporting the trial ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.