Ross v. Ross, 215 N.C. App. 546

This is Ross v. Ross (now Osborne), a NC domestic case involving reclassification and valuation of Emerald Isle property acquired before marriage.
On remand, the trial court issued a discovery order (May 6, 2010) requiring responses and production related to the Emerald Isle property.
Plaintiff-brother (Ross) produced some responses but refused to disclose key documents, claiming they were proprietary and to be revealed at ED hearings.
The trial court imposed discovery sanctions (July 21, 2010) striking plaintiff's equitable distribution claim and barring evidence on the issue.
Defendant sought contempt findings for noncompliance with discovery and appraiser cooperation; contempt orders were entered (July 21 and July 28, 2010).
The appellate court affirmed the discovery order, partially affirmed but reversed in part the sanctions and contempt orders, and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Were the discovery sanctions proper?	Ross argues sanctions were abuse of discretion.	Osborne argues sanctions were warranted.	Sanctions upheld; not an abuse.
Were lesser sanctions considered before striking the ED claim?	Ross contends lesser sanctions were not considered.	Osborne contends the court did consider lesser sanctions.	Court did consider; sanctions appropriate.
Does barring evidence at the ED hearing align with the mandate to reclassify/valúe Emerald Isle?	Ross claims it violates the mandate to classify/mvalue, delaying resolution.	Osborne argues sanctions do not preclude future classification/valuation order.	Not inconsistent with mandate; permissible.
Were civil contempt procedures valid and notice proper?	Ross contends there was no proper sworn motion or five-day notice.	Osborne asserts contempt findings were valid.	Notice and purge mechanisms defective; contempt orders reversed.
Are the contempt findings and related sanctions moot?	Ross argues mootness since no penalty imposed.	Osborne contends potential collateral consequences survive.	Contempt findings not moot; remand for proper proceedings.

Harrison v. Harrison, 180 N.C.App. 452 (2006) (sanctions for discovery are permissible; less drastic sanctions may be appropriate)
Clawser v. Campbell, 184 N.C.App. 526 (2007) (court must consider lesser sanctions before striking defenses)
Goss v. Battle, 111 N.C.App. 173 (1993) (tenets of discovery sanctions and strategy)
Benton v. Hillcrest Foods, Inc., 136 N.C.App. 42 (1999) (abuse of discretion standard for Rule 37 sanctions)
Guerrier v. Guerrier, 155 N.C.App. 154 (2002) (immediacy of appeal for contempt orders)