Donna S. Stroud

The case involved a father appealing a May 2025 permanency planning order in a North Carolina juvenile proceeding, where his three children had been adjudicated neglected and dependent after their mother's death, interstate moves, and placement with a relative, Ms. Smith; the order granted her guardianship and allowed the father visitation. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the father had not personally signed the notice of appeal, as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1001(c). The court declined to invoke Rule 2 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure sua sponte to treat the appellate brief as a petition for certiorari, finding no manifest injustice, since the record showed the trial court had properly exercised temporary emergency jurisdiction under the UCCJEA (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50A-204) and the father had not demonstrated grounds for review.

family lawprocedure

The case involved respondent Martin E. Rock’s appeal from Durham County Superior Court orders that authorized a substitute trustee to proceed with foreclosure on his property under a 2007 deed of trust and denied his motion to withdraw his appeal from the clerk’s initial foreclosure order. After Rock appealed to superior court, the foreclosure sale occurred, the property was conveyed to the highest bidder, and a trustee’s deed was recorded. The North Carolina Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal as moot. The court reasoned that once a foreclosure sale is completed and the trustee’s deed recorded, the parties’ rights become fixed under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 45-21.29A, rendering any challenge to the sale unreviewable. It distinguished the case from In re Cornblum, finding the superior court’s orders fell within its statutory jurisdiction under § 45-21.16(d) and that Rock’s mid-hearing attempt to withdraw his appeal did not strip the court of authority or create reviewable collateral consequences.

propertyprocedure

In re R.L. involved a Craven County DSS juvenile petition alleging that three-month-old Robbie was abused after he was found with multiple unexplained fractures and bruises while in his parents’ care. Following an adjudication of abuse, the trial court entered a combined initial disposition and permanency planning order that found aggravating circumstances—specifically chronic physical abuse—and determined that reasonable efforts toward reunification were not required. On appeal, the mother challenged the trial court’s judicial notice of prior Responsible Individuals List orders and its cessation of reunification efforts. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the mother waived review of the judicial-notice issue by failing to object at the hearing and that competent evidence supported the trial court’s findings of repeated non-accidental injuries, satisfying the statutory grounds under N.C.G.S. § 7B-901(c) to eliminate reunification efforts at the initial disposition stage.

family law

The case involved Joshua C. Hampton’s appeal of multiple criminal judgments from Cherokee County Superior Court, where he was sentenced as a prior record level IV felon partly based on a 2000 Florida conviction for home invasion robbery, which the trial court treated as substantially similar to North Carolina’s Class D armed robbery offense. Hampton argued that the record did not allow a proper comparison of the elements of the Florida offense to any North Carolina felony, requiring resentencing. The Court of Appeals remanded for resentencing, holding that the appellate record was insufficient because the State’s exhibits—the certified Florida conviction documents and the relevant statutes—were never filed in the trial court and could not be located despite efforts to reconstruct them. The court noted that the record also lacked information on the date the Florida offense was committed and which version of the Florida statute applied, preventing determination of substantial similarity as required under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.14(e). Both parties may present additional evidence at the resentencing hearing.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the termination of parental rights of a mother and father to their two young children after the parents were convicted in connection with the beating death of the father’s older child, which occurred in the younger children’s presence amid severely unsafe home conditions including unsecured weapons, blood evidence, and animal waste. The Mecklenburg County Department of Social Services had obtained custody, secured adjudications of neglect and dependency, ceased reunification efforts, and petitioned for termination on neglect grounds. The trial court denied the mother’s oral request for the judge’s recusal and entered an order terminating both parents’ rights. On appeal, the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the mother presented no substantial evidence of personal bias or circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to question the judge’s impartiality and that the trial court’s findings supported both the existence of neglect and the conclusion that termination served the children’s best interests.

family law

The case involved defendant Traven Laree Branch’s appeal from a trial court order revoking his probation and activating his suspended sentences in two Cumberland County cases. The Court of Appeals vacated the revocation in Case No. 23 CRS 005219, holding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the only revocation-eligible violation (absconding) appeared in an addendum the State never served on the defendant, violating the statutory notice requirement under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1345(e). It affirmed the revocation in Case No. 22 CRS 050476, concluding that the defendant’s in-court admission through counsel of the absconding violation constituted competent evidence and satisfied due process. The court reasoned that the served violation reports in the second case did not support revocation on their own, but the unchallenged admission of absconding did.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Heavner, defendant Bryan Heavner was convicted after a jury trial of trafficking methamphetamine, heroin, and fentanyl by possession and transportation, and of possession of cocaine, based on evidence from a traffic stop and pursuit in Cleveland County following a controlled buy involving confidential informant Katie Montgomery. He appealed, contending that the trial court violated his Confrontation Clause rights by limiting cross-examination of Montgomery regarding potential bias, incentives, or deals, and erred by declining to give North Carolina Pattern Jury Instruction 104.21 on quasi-immunity testimony. The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that Heavner received a fair trial free of prejudicial error. The court reasoned that the trial court’s limits on cross-examination were reasonable under the Confrontation Clause, many of the defendant’s factual claims about undisclosed Gaston County arrangements lacked record support, and no showing was made of bias from charges or supervision in a separate jurisdiction.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a father’s appeal from a Gaston County District Court order terminating his parental rights to his daughter under North Carolina General Statute § 7B-1111(a)(7) on the ground of willful abandonment. The mother had petitioned for termination in June 2024, alleging no meaningful contact since at least July 2022, and the trial court found that the father had withheld his presence, support, and communication for six consecutive months before the filing. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court’s unchallenged findings established the father took no direct steps to contact or care for the child during the relevant period, filed for visitation only after the petition, and that third-party efforts (such as those by his attorney) did not overcome the evidence of willful abandonment. The court reviewed the findings under the clear, cogent, and convincing evidence standard and concluded they supported the legal determination of abandonment.

family law

In Ahdi v. Ahdi, a divorced couple litigated claims for equitable distribution of marital property, alimony, child support, and related enforcement after their 2021 separation, with the father appealing three trial court orders from Mecklenburg County District Court. The North Carolina Court of Appeals vacated the May 2023 equitable distribution and alimony order and remanded for a new trial on those issues, vacated the related order denying the father's post-trial motion, and vacated the October 2023 civil contempt order in full. The court held that the trial court failed to make the required findings of fact and conclusions of law to support equitable distribution and alimony. It further held that the contempt order lacked required findings on the father's present ability to pay the purge amount, improperly relied on the now-vacated underlying order, and could not enforce a consent order that had already expired by its own terms.

family lawproperty

In Ahdi v. Ahdi, the North Carolina Court of Appeals addressed consolidated appeals from trial court orders in a divorce case between Stephanie Ahdi and Masoud Ahdi involving equitable distribution of marital property, alimony, child support, and civil contempt for alleged violations of prior orders. The trial court had awarded the wife a $100,000 distributive award, monthly alimony, and held the husband in civil contempt, ordering him to pay a purge amount or face custody. The appellate court vacated the equitable distribution and alimony order because the trial court failed to make the required findings of fact and conclusions of law on those claims, and remanded for a new trial limited to those issues. It also vacated the civil contempt order in full, as the trial court did not find the husband had a current ability to pay the purge amount, the underlying consent order had expired by its terms, and the contempt could not rest on the now-vacated distribution and alimony order.

family lawpropertyprocedure

In MacDonald v. MacDonald, a divorce proceeding between Katherine MacDonald (Wife) and Bryce MacDonald (Husband) involving claims for equitable distribution of marital assets—including two LLCs that managed rental properties and an entertainment business—child support, and sanctions, Wife appealed the trial court’s 2024 order. The Court of Appeals affirmed the equitable distribution judgment and the sanctions imposed on Wife under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50-21(e). It partially vacated the child support portion, however, because the trial court’s finding on Husband’s gross income (specifically social security benefits and 401(k) withdrawals) was unsupported by any evidence in the record, and remanded for a new child support calculation limited to that issue, either on the existing record or after a further evidentiary hearing if requested.

family lawproperty

In Price v. Price, a mother appealed a permanent child custody order from Henderson County District Court that awarded sole legal and primary physical custody of her two minor children to the paternal grandparents, after the trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that both parents had neglected the children and acted inconsistently with their constitutional parental rights. The Court of Appeals affirmed the order. It held that the record on appeal was insufficient for review because the mother provided transcripts from only three of seven hearing days and omitted all exhibits, requiring the court to accept the trial court's detailed findings as supported by the evidence; her remaining challenges to the fitness determination, change-of-circumstances analysis, and two-year delay in entry of the order were without merit under controlling precedent.

family lawprocedure

The North Carolina Court of Appeals reviewed an appeal by Respondent Mother from a district court order terminating her parental rights to her three children, A.N.T., C.R.T., and L.C.T. The case arose after repeated DSS interventions due to neglect linked to the parents’ substance abuse and instability; the children were removed from Mother’s care multiple times, she consistently failed to complete court-ordered reunification requirements such as a comprehensive clinical assessment, negative drug screens, parenting classes, and stable housing, and the trial court ultimately found grounds for termination under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1111(a)(1) based on ongoing neglect. The trial court also determined that termination served the children’s best interests after weighing statutory factors including the children’s ages, bonds with caregivers, likelihood of adoption, and safety risks in Mother’s environment. Mother’s appellate counsel filed a no-merit brief under Rule 3.1(e), and the Court of Appeals identified no error in the trial court’s findings or conclusions, affirming the termination order.

family law

In Biddle v. Biddle, a divorcing couple disputed the classification, valuation, and distribution of assets in an equitable distribution proceeding, including the marital home, a townhome, Monroe Medical stock, investment accounts, and retirement funds, after entering a detailed Pretrial Order with extensive stipulations on those issues. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for a new order. It held that the trial court failed to comply with the parties’ binding stipulations by deciding matters outside the agreed-upon issues, misclassifying portions of stipulated marital property (such as the townhome) as separate, and incorrectly placing the burden of proof on the defendant regarding appreciation of the plaintiff’s separate assets during the marriage.

family lawpropertyprocedure

In State v. McFarland, the defendant entered an Alford guilty plea in Forsyth County Superior Court to second-degree arson, felony breaking or entering, and larceny after breaking or entering. He appealed, arguing that the trial court lacked a sufficient factual basis to accept the arson plea, but because a guilty plea generally does not allow an appeal as of right on that issue, he filed a petition for writ of certiorari to obtain review. The Court of Appeals noted that issuance of the writ is discretionary and requires a showing of merit or probable error below. After reviewing the factual basis presented by the State at the plea hearing—which included evidence of the defendant’s presence at the scene, a physical altercation, forced entry, and DNA matching him at the point of entry with extremely high probability—the court concluded the defendant had not shown merit or error. It therefore denied the petition and dismissed the appeal.

criminal lawprocedure

In Barefoot v. Durham County, residents living near a proposed 141-lot conservation subdivision called Mason Farms sued Durham County after the Board of Commissioners approved the site plan and a related special-use permit under the county’s Unified Development Ordinance. The plaintiffs argued that the approval was invalid because the plan did not satisfy all twelve purposes listed in UDO Section 6.2.4A. The trial court granted summary judgment to the county, but the Court of Appeals reversed. The court held that Section 6.2.4A is a general statement of purposes rather than a set of mandatory criteria that must all be met; the specific, detailed requirements elsewhere in the ordinance control, and the Board properly approved the plan once those requirements were satisfied. The case was remanded for further proceedings, including on the plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In 2020, the NAACP Gaston County Branch and other plaintiffs sued Gaston County seeking removal of a Confederate monument erected in 1912 and relocated to the current courthouse grounds, alleging violations of the state constitution’s Open Courts Clause and Equal Protection Clause. The trial court granted summary judgment to the County, finding that the Monument Protection Law (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 100-2.1) barred removal except under narrow statutory conditions not present here and that plaintiffs had not established any constitutional violation. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Open Courts claim was foreclosed by its prior decision in NAACP v. Alamance County. On the equal protection claim, the court ruled that the County’s decision not to move the monument was irrelevant under the statute and that plaintiffs failed to show the required discriminatory intent plus meaningful disparate racial impact, as their evidence consisted only of survey data on negative feelings and expert testimony about psychological effects rather than any effect on courthouse access or judicial outcomes.

civil rightsprocedure

This case is Respondent Mother’s second appeal from permanency planning orders in a Buncombe County juvenile proceeding involving her three minor children, who were adjudicated neglected. The orders on remand eliminated reunification with Mother as a permanent plan, prompting her challenge; however, the Buncombe County Department of Health and Human Services moved to dismiss because it had filed petitions to terminate her parental rights within 65 days of those orders’ entry and service. The North Carolina Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and denied Mother’s conditional request for a writ of certiorari. Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1001(a)(5), a parent may not appeal an order eliminating reunification when a termination petition has been filed within the statutory 65-day window, so the appeal is barred at this stage; Mother retains the ability to appeal the orders later if termination is granted, together with any termination order under a separate statutory provision.

family lawprocedure

In State v. Sanchez, a sheriff’s deputy and school resource officer was convicted of contributing to the abuse of a juvenile and willfully failing to discharge his duties of office after he encouraged a 17-year-old in a Police Explorers program to tase herself during a ride-along. The North Carolina Court of Appeals vacated both convictions. The court held that the State presented no substantial evidence satisfying the statutory elements of either charge: the juvenile-abuse statute was not shown to have been violated by the defendant’s conduct, and Section 14-230 requires proof that an officer omitted or refused to perform a pre-existing external duty (such as executing a warrant or investigating a reported crime), rather than engaging in affirmative misconduct that created the risk.

criminal law

In State v. Williams, the defendant appealed her convictions for trafficking heroin by manufacturing, transport, and possession, as well as possession with intent to sell or deliver, arguing that the trial court erred by denying her motion to suppress drugs found during a police encounter at a convenience store and that admitting the evidence at trial constituted plain error. The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court correctly denied the suppression motion and that there was no error in admitting the evidence. The court reasoned that unchallenged findings showed Officer Clinton had reasonable suspicion to briefly detain the defendant based on the dispatch report of a slumped person in a vehicle with a history of drug activity at that location, and that Officer Buchanan later had probable cause to search the silicone container—observed in plain view and recognized from experience as used for controlled substances—after the defendant handed it over without objection and he detected the odor of vinegar consistent with heroin.

criminal lawprocedure