in the Court of Appeals 8 May 2019.
by Plaintiff from an order entered 5 July 2018 by Judge
Robert J. Stiehl, III, in Cumberland County, Nos. 07 CVD
7455, 09 CVD 3983 District Court.
Pryor, Raleigh, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
brief filed for Defendant-Appellee.
matter is a domestic dispute concerning the child support
obligations of Guy Unger ("Father") pursuant to
orders entered in 2012. More recently, Father filed a series
of motions, including motions pursuant to Rule 60, seeking
relief from the 2012 orders. By order entered 5 July 2018,
the trial court denied Fathers motions. Father appealed. For
the following reasons, we affirm.
August 2007, Father filed a complaint for divorce from bed
and board, child custody, child support, equitable
distribution, and Rule 65 injunctive relief against Heather
August 2008, the trial court entered an order (the "2008
Order") requiring Father to pay child support in the
amount of $2,142.00 per month. However, Father fell behind on
his child support obligations, and Mother moved the trial
court to hold Father in contempt. The trial court issued an
order for Father to appear and show cause why he should not
be held in civil or criminal contempt.
September 2012, prior to the show cause hearing, the parties
signed a Memorandum of Judgment (the "2012 MOJ").
In the 2012 MOJ, Father agreed to be held in contempt, and
Mother agreed that Fathers child support obligation would be
reduced to $700.00 per month going forward and that
Father could catch up on the arrearages he had accumulated up
to that point at a rate of $100.00 per month.
month later, on 25 October 2012, the trial court entered a
written order (the "2012 Order") formalizing the
2012 MOJ. There is evidence, though, that Father immediately
fell behind on his modified child support obligations. As a
result, on 7 November 2012, the trial court entered an order
for Fathers arrest (the "2012 Arrest Order"). This
2012 Arrest Order is problematic, as explained below, but
Father is not making any argument concerning this Order in
the present appeal, and it is unclear from the record the
status of the 2012 Arrest Order.
did not immediately appeal any of the 2012 orders. But almost
six years later, in March 2018, Father filed several motions,
including motions for relief under Rule 60, challenging the
July 2018, the trial court entered an order dismissing
Fathers motions, including Fathers Rule 60 motions for
relief from the 2012 orders. Father timely appealed from this
appellate brief, Father only argues against the
denial of his Rule 60 motions. Accordingly, our review is
limited to the trial courts denial of Fathers Rule 60
Fathers Rule 60(b)(4) Claim
moved for relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4) of our Rules of
Civil Procedure, which allows relief from a judgment where
"[t]he judgment is void." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1,
Rule 60(b)(4) (2018). Specifically, Father argues that the
2012 orders are void because they allowed the trial court the
authority to order his arrest for an indefinite time going
forward if ...