226 N.C. App. 270
N.C. Ct. App.2013Background
- Plaintiff Crystal Y. Reeder and Defendant Brian D. Carter married in 2002, have two children, separated in 2008 and divorced in 2010.
- Separated parties executed a 2009 Separation Agreement: Plaintiff custody of children; Defendant to pay $1,200 monthly child support, mortgage payments, taxes and insurance for the former home, and $56,000 Ferguson Debt; Plaintiff to pay other household expenses.
- The Separation Agreement contained a clause allowing specific performance for breach, acknowledging no plain, speedy, or adequate legal remedy; it was not incorporated into the divorce decree.
- Plaintiff filed a 2010 Randolph County District Court complaint alleging breach of the Separation Agreement, seeking specific performance, mortgage payment damages, child support arrearages, Ferguson Debt damages, and attorney’s fees.
- At a 2011 hearing, Plaintiff admitted Defendant had paid household expenses; Defendant had filed for bankruptcy.
- On 24 February 2012 the court issued the final order: no specific performance; damages for unpaid child support ($22,950) and Ferguson Debt ($4,333.33); attorney’s fees ($832.50); mortgage payment claim denied ($23,000).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly denied specific performance | Reeder argues the Separation Agreement entitles specific performance | Carter argues the court should deny specific performance per standard rules | affirmed; specific performance denied |
| Effect of contractual specific performance clause | Clause negates need to prove equitable prerequisites | Clause is not binding to override equitable standards | clause does not negate plaintiff’s burden to prove equitable requirements |
| Whether Defendant had the ability to perform | Defendant could perform; evidence of ability not required | Defendant’s ability to perform not established; no direct evidence presented | Plaintiff failed to prove Defendant’s ability to perform; court did not err in denying specific performance |
| Adequacy of remedy at law for breach of the Separation Agreement | Damages are inadequate as a remedy; specific performance appropriate | Damages may be adequate in some contexts, but not here | Damages typically inadequate for separation agreements; insufficient to warrant specific performance under record |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. Moore, 297 N.C. 14, 252 S.E.2d 735 (N.C. 1979) (damages usually inadequate; equity may be appropriate for specific performance)
- Edwards v. Edwards, 102 N.C. App. 706, 403 S.E.2d 530 (N.C. App. 1991) (specific performance available in some separation agreement contexts)
- Cavenaugh v. Cavenaugh, 317 N.C. 652, 347 S.E.2d 19 (N.C. 1986) (need findings on ability to perform before ordering specific performance)
- Condellone v. Condellone, 129 N.C. App. 675, 501 S.E.2d 690 (N.C. App. 1998) (alleged ability to perform; evidence requirements for ability to pay)