Heard
in the Court of Appeals 8 May 2019.
Appeal
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.
Renorda Pryor for Plaintiff-Appellant.
No
brief filed for Defendant-Appellee.
DILLON, JUDGE.
This
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 Father's motions. Father appealed.
For the following reasons, we affirm.
I.
Background
In
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
Unger ("Mother").
In
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.
In
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 Father's 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.
A 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 Father's 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.
Father
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
2012 orders.
On 5
July 2018, the trial court entered an order dismissing
Father's motions, including Father's Rule 60 motions
for relief from the 2012 orders. Father timely appealed from
this order.
In his
appellate brief, Father only argues against the
denial of his Rule 60 motions. Accordingly, our review is
limited to the trial court's denial of Father's Rule
60 motions.[1]
II.
Analysis
A.
Father's Rule 60(b)(4) Claim
Father
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 Mother ever claimed he missed a payment,
without giving him the opportunity to be heard on the matter.
Father's
argument centers on the provision in the 2012 Order finding
him in contempt for ...