Young v. Young, 736 S.E.2d 538

Plaintiff Henry O. Young, III and Defendant were married 2001, separated 2007, and divorced with three children.
Consent Judgment (Dec 19, 2008) awarded primary physical custody to Defendant and joint legal custody; child support detailed in consent order.
Plaintiff lost employment Sept 29, 2010; began receiving unemployment; filed financial/wage affidavits Oct 29, 2010 and a modification motion Dec 2, 2010.
Defendant filed financial affidavits Mar 2011; various contempt and modification motions heard through 2011; 18 Apr 2011 contempt order addressed child support and mortgage under the Separation Agreement.
The trial court denied modification (Order 1) on July 19, 2011 for failure to file a financial affidavit; Rule 60 motion led to a new hearing Nov 9, 2011.
On Jan 4, 2012 the court held Plaintiff in contempt for noncompliance with the 18 Apr 2011 order and for mortgage-related obligations; mortgage provisions later incorporated into orders.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying modification of child support	Young argues substantial change in circumstances existed due to unemployment.	Defendant contends no substantial change; evidence shows weak job-search and voluntary income reduction shorts of change.	No abuse; no substantial change established; modification denied.
Whether the appeal on the 18 April 2011 order was timely and properly reviewable	Young asserts inadequate review due to missed appeal deadline.	Defendant contends timely appeal required by Rule 3; failure to timely appeal divests appellate jurisdiction.	Appellate jurisdiction lacking; claims regarding 18 April 2011 order dismissed for lack of timely appeal.
Whether due process required appointment of counsel for contempt	Young contends due process required court-appointed counsel given potential incarceration.	No indigence proven; court provided continuances and Young had employment prospects.	No due process violation; no appointment of counsel required absent indigence.
Whether contempt finding was proper for mortgage provisions not incorporated into the order	Mortgage payments not incorporated into the consent judgment; contempt improperly based on mortgage obligation.	Mortgage provision was incorporated in the 18 April 2011 order and later enforced; contempt proper for noncompliance.	Contempt proper; mortgage provisions incorporated and enforced via subsequent order.

Leary v. Leary, 152 N.C. App. 438 (N.C. App. 2002) (appellate review of child support abuse of discretion standard)
State v. Hennis, 323 N.C. 279 (N.C. 1988) (abuse of discretion and findings required)
Spicer v. Spicer, 168 N.C. App. 283 (N.C. App. 2005) (requires adequate findings on legal conclusions)
Head v. Mosier, 197 N.C. App. 328 (N.C. App. 2009) (substantial change in circumstances framework for modification)
Wolf v. Wolf, 151 N.C. App. 523 (N.C. App. 2002) (unemployment alone does not guarantee modification; bad faith evidence matters)
Turner v. Rogers, 131 S. Ct. 2507 (2011) (due process in civil contempt; indigence and safeguards matter; counsel not automatic)
King v. King, 144 N.C. App. 391 (N.C. App. 2001) (indigence burden on party seeking counsel in contempt)
Walters v. Walters, 307 N.C. 381 (N.C. 1983) (separation agreements treated as judgments when incorporated; contempt enforceable obligations)