Balawejder v. Balawejder, 216 N.C. App. 301

Plaintiff and Defendant married Jan 17, 1998 in Sweden; they moved to Charlotte, NC in 2005 and have one child born Sept 26, 2005.
On Dec 9, 2008, Plaintiff filed for divorce from bed and board, child custody, child support, and equitable distribution; Defendant answered with counterclaims and sought various reliefs.
On Dec 26, 2008, Defendant filed a Domestic Violence Protection Order; ex parte protection order issued against Plaintiff.
On Mar 26, 2009, the court entered a handwritten Memorandum of Judgment/Order resolving custody and visitation as a final order, reserving equitable distribution, alimony, and attorney fees.
On Jun 10, 2010, the court issued an Order for Permanent Child Custody and Support, partially granting Plaintiff’s modification request.
On Oct 1, 2010, the court awarded attorney’s fees to Defendant and issued a supplemental order; on appeal, the attorney-fee orders were vacated and remanded for reconsideration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 26 March 2009 MOJ was a permanent order.	Plaintiff argues it was a temporary order.	MOJ was a final order.	MOJ treated as permanent; argument rejected.
Whether the modification relied on proper baselines and changed circumstances.	Modification relied on improper pre-MOJ facts.	Court may consider pre- and post-MOJ circumstances.	Court did not abuse discretion; baseline considerations proper.
Whether the court erred in not imputing income for child support.	Income should be imputed to Defendant for support.	Defendant’s income was not depressed in bad faith; no imputation.	No abuse; findings support not imputing income.
Whether the extraordinary expenses were properly reflected under guidelines.	Court deviated from guidelines by allocating 97% of certain expenses to Father.	Expenses fall within discretionary adjustments for extraordinary costs.	Findings support extraordinary expenses; no reversible deviation.
Whether the court had jurisdiction to award attorney’s fees after notice of appeal.	Post-appeal fee awards were improper; jurisdiction lacking.	Fees were warranted; issue raised on appeal.	Attorney-fee orders vacated; remanded for reconsideration.

Buckingham v. Buckingham, 134 N.C. App. 82, 516 S.E.2d 869 (1999) (consent custody orders may waive findings of fact and conclusions of law)
Karger v. Wood, 174 N.C. App. 703, 622 S.E.2d 197 (2005) (substantial change in circumstances required for modification)
Holliman, State v. Holliman, 155 N.C. App. 120, 573 S.E.2d 682 (2002) (preservation of appellate issues; switching positions prohibited)
In re Harrell, 11 N.C. App. 351, 181 S.E.2d 188 (1971) (definition of change in circumstances affecting welfare of child)
Pataky v. Pataky, 160 N.C. App. 289, 585 S.E.2d 404 (2003) (imputation of income for child support requires bad faith finding)