Unger v. Unger

         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, Raleigh, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

          No brief filed for Defendant-Appellee.

          OPINION

         DILLON, Judge.

Page 650

          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 ...