Ludlam v. Miller, 225 N.C. App. 350

Background

Plaintiff Warren McGee Ludlam and Defendant Leslie Knox Miller were separated in 2006, with two minor children from the marriage.
They signed a Consent Child Support and Parenting Agreement on 7 June 2006, requiring Ludlam to transfer 15% of certain inheritances to the children’s trusts and to fund separate trust accounts by 31 December 2006.
Ludlam did not fund the children's trust by 31 December 2006; a separate trust for the children appears to have been created in 2007 but not funded.
Helen Ludlam (Ludlam’s mother) died 20 December 2008; Ludlam allegedly inherited about $368,487.26 from her estate, with a partial cash distribution of $325,953.94 to Ludlam and $48,893.10 (15%) deposited into the children's trusts by 5 January 2010.
Shyloski, Ludlam’s financial advisor and friend of both parties, testified that 2009 separate trusts were established for the children; the trial court did not specify how much of the 2009 inheritance was allocated to the children.
A Custody Consent Agreement on 21 January 2010 granted primary physical custody to Miller and secondary custody to Ludlam; subsequent to this, the trial court entered an order on 31 October 2011 addressing child support, health insurance, and other expenses.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Imputation of income to both parents	Ludlam contends no deliberate income depression; but if any, imputation should reflect prior earnings under guidelines.	The court properly imputed minimum wage due to alleged deliberate income suppression.	Remanded for proper findings; if deliberate depression found, impute per guidelines; otherwise may not impute.
Inclusion of non-recurring inheritance in support	Inheritance should be considered or its impact assessed under guidelines.	Non-recurring income need not be factored; district court has broad discretion.	Not required to factor remaining inheritance; trial court did not abuse discretion.
Self-support reserve applicability	Plaintiff’s and defendant’s incomes fall under self-support reserve, reducing obligations.	Court erred in not treating inheritance as affecting support; argued for adjustments.	Remanded to determine eligibility for self-support reserve with appropriate findings.
Health and dental insurance obligations and findings	Plaintiff should receive necessary insurance access; findings should reflect availability and costs.	Insurance cost and provider status not properly found; may be through stepparent or employer.	Remanded for additional findings; insurer status and cost must be adequately addressed.
Private school costs under extraordinary expenses	Plaintiff to pay half of private school costs per prior agreement; deviation may be warranted.	No deviation from guidelines; private school costs should be analyzed as extraordinary expenses if appropriate.	No abuse of discretion; private school costs not enforced to modify support, but potential deviation discussed with proper findings.

Key Cases Cited

Spicer v. Spicer, 168 N.C. App. 283, 607 S.E.2d 678 (N.C. App. 2005) (standard of review for child support and need for findings)
Ellis v. Ellis, 126 N.C. App. 362, 485 S.E.2d 82 (N.C. App. 1997) (earnings capacity imputation requires bad faith finding)
Beamer v. Beamer, 169 N.C. App. 594, 610 S.E.2d 220 (N.C. App. 2005) (guidelines deviation; need for proper findings)
Biggs v. Greer, 136 N.C. App. 294, 524 S.E.2d 577 (N.C. App. 2000) (discretion in extraordinary expense determinations)
Brown v. Ginn, 181 N.C. App. 563, 640 S.E.2d 787 (N.C. App. 2007) (contract interpretation and termination of prior agreement)
Moore v. Onafowora, 208 N.C. App. 674, 703 S.E.2d 744 (N.C. App. 2010) (abuse of discretion standard in child support)
Davis v. Kelly, 147 N.C. App. 102, 554 S.E.2d 402 (N.C. App. 2001) (attorney’s fees; broad discretion of trial court)
Batlle v. Sabates, 198 N.C. App. 407, 681 S.E.2d 788 (N.C. App. 2009) (sanctions discretion)