Romulus v. Romulus
715 S.E.2d 889
N.C. Ct. App.2011Background
- This case is the companion to Romulus v. Romulus, involving enforcement of a distributive award from an equitable distribution order.
- An order (Mar. 4, 2010) required defendant to pay plaintiff a distributive award of $629,840 over 84 monthly installments starting Jan. 10, 2010.
- Plaintiff moved for contempt when monthly payments were not made; a series of enforcement orders and writs followed through July 2010.
- Defendant appealed the equitable distribution order; questions were raised about the trial court’s authority to enforce or to enter judgments during the appeal.
- The Court vacates the enforcement orders for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and remands for proceedings consistent with the companion appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to enforce the distributive award during appeal | Romulus argues enforcement is permissible under §1-294 and related rules despite appeal. | Romulus contends the appeal divested the court of jurisdiction to enforce or reduce arrears to judgment. | Vacated; no jurisdiction to enforce during appeal. |
| Whether reducing past-due payments to judgment during appeal was permissible | Romulus asserts the court can determine & judgment for past amounts under §1-289. | Romulus argues such reduction encroaches on appellate stay and violates §1-294/§50-20(e). | Vacated; cannot reduce past-due installments to judgment during appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Quick v. Quick, 305 N.C. 446 (1982) (alimony orders enforceable as money judgments during appeal; execution may proceed without stay bond)
- Joyner v. Joyner, 256 N.C. 588 (1962) (money judgments may be enforced during appeal; contempt vs. execution distinction)
- Carpenter v. Carpenter, 25 N.C.App. 307 (1975) (remain attentive to jurisdictional limits when enforcing arrears during appeal)
- Duplin County Bd. of Educ. v. Duplin County Bd. of County Com'rs, 201 N.C.App. 113 (2009) (statutory interpretation to avoid absurd results; relevance to statutory construction)