Court Opinion

ID: 9914464
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-02 13:04:24.869624+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:13:12.678722
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA

                                  No. COA22-931

                               Filed 2 January 2024

Forsyth County, No. 19 CVD 5145

LUCINDA M. MEEKER, Plaintiff,

            v.

JAMES E. MEEKER, Defendant.

      Appeal by Defendant from Order entered on 28 June 2021 and from Contempt

Order entered 30 November 2021 by Judge Lawrence J. Fine in Forsyth County

District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 5 September 2023.

      Connell & Gelb PLLC, by Michelle D. Connell, for plaintiff-appellee.

      Jonathan McGirt, for defendant-appellant.

      DILLON, Judge.

      James E. Meeker (“Husband”) appeals from an Order entered finding him in

breach of a support provision in a separation agreement and from a Contempt Order

finding him in contempt of the Order.

                                I.      Background

      Husband and Lucinda M. Meeker (“Wife”) were married in 1982, had two

children by 1996, separated in 2009, and divorced in May 2011.

      In 2010, after separating but before divorcing, Husband and Wife entered into

a separation agreement (the “Agreement”). The Agreement provided, among other
                                    MEEKER V. MEEKER

                                      Opinion of the Court

matters, that Husband pay Wife spousal support of $7,577.78 each month1 until 2025

and that Wife waive any right to alimony in any subsequent divorce action. The

Agreement also provided that, while each party was free to reside anywhere and with

anyone (s)he “may deem fit or as each of them may desire[,]” Husband’s obligation to

pay spousal support would terminate prior to 2025 upon the “death, remarriage, or

cohabitation” of Wife.

       The Agreement and the trial court orders in this matter all refer to the monthly

spousal support payments due under the Agreement as “alimony.” However, the

Agreement was never adopted by any trial court in an order.                  Accordingly, the

monthly spousal support payments are better characterized as a contractual

obligation (or “spousal support payments”) rather than as “alimony.” See N.C. Gen.

Stat. § 50-16.1A(1) (defining “alimony” as “an order [by a court] for payment for the

support and maintenance of a spouse or former spouse”).

       In 2011, the parties divorced.

       In 2018, Wife began dating a man and stayed almost every night at his home

for over two years.

       1   Pursuant to the Agreement, the monthly support payments of $7,577.78 were initially
characterized as $6,000.00 for spousal support and the remainder for child support. However, the
monthly payment was entirely characterized as a spousal support payment by late 2014, when the
parties’ younger child turned 18 years of age.

                                             -2-
                                 MEEKER V. MEEKER

                                   Opinion of the Court

      In 2019, Husband stopped paying Wife monthly spousal support under the

Agreement, based on his belief that Wife was cohabiting with another man and that,

accordingly, his obligation to pay monthly support to Wife had terminated.

      Wife commenced this action alleging Husband had breached the Agreement

and seeking, in part, an order directing Husband to specifically perform his obligation

to pay her monthly spousal support under that Agreement.

      In June 2021, after extensive hearings on the matter, the trial court entered

its Order, finding that Wife had not been cohabiting.         The trial court directed

Husband to “specifically perform under the [Agreement] for the payment of [spousal

support]” which “shall be ongoing in the future.”         The trial court separately

determined Husband owed fifteen months in back support payments and that

Husband was obligated to continue making payments as they came due.

      In July 2021, Husband noticed an appeal from the Order. This Order was not

stayed.

      In November 2021, the trial court entered its Contempt Order, holding

Husband in civil contempt for his willful failure to comply with the earlier Order to

specifically perform his obligation to pay the $113,666.70 in arrearages. Recognizing

that Husband did not have the present ability to pay all the arrearages, the trial court

directed that Husband could purge himself of contempt (1) by paying $38,800.00 by

29 November 2021 and (2) by paying $2,500.00 per month beginning January 2022

until he satisfied the remaining balance of $74,866.70.

                                          -3-
                                 MEEKER V. MEEKER

                                  Opinion of the Court

      On 30 November 2021, Husband tendered a check for $38,800.00. He then

appealed the Contempt Order.

                                  II.   Analysis

      This appeal concerns the July 2021 Order and the November 2021 Contempt

Order. Husband makes three arguments on appeal, which we address below.

                                A.      Cohabitation

      Husband has contended all along that his obligation to pay spousal support

ceased under the terms of the Agreement before 2019, when Wife began cohabiting

with a man Husband alleges to be Wife’s boyfriend. He argues the trial court erred

by applying a statutory interpretation of “cohabitation” as used in the Agreement to

find that Wife was not cohabiting.

      In 1995, our General Assembly amended the law concerning alimony orders,

such that an obligation to pay alimony would terminate if the dependent spouse

“engages in cohabitation[.]” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50-16.9(b) (2021). In that amendment,

our General Assembly defines “cohabitation,” in part, as “the act of two adults

dwelling together continuously and habitually in a private heterosexual relationship”

which is evidenced “by the voluntary mutual assumption of those marital rights,

duties, and obligations which are usually manifested by married people, and which

include, but are not necessarily dependent on, sexual relations.” Id.

      This statutory definition of “cohabitation” is similar to the definition that had

been applied earlier by our Supreme Court and by this Court:

                                         -4-
                                  MEEKER V. MEEKER

                                   Opinion of the Court

             Cohabitation is defined as: “To live together as husband
             and wife. The mutual assumption of those marital rights,
             duties and obligations which are usually manifested by
             married people, including but not necessarily dependent on
             sexual relations.” Black’s Law Dictionary 236 (5th ed.
             1979). In Young v. Young, 225 N.C. 340, 34 S.E.2d 154
             (1945), [our Supreme] Court stated . . . “[C]ohabitation
             means living together as man and wife, though not
             necessarily implying sexual relations.” Id. at 344, 34
             S.E.2d at 157. In Dudley v. Dudley, 225 N.C. 83, 33 S.E.2d
             489 (1945) . . . the Court stated:

                    Cohabit, according to Winston’s Dictionary,
                    Encyclopedia Edition (1943), means: “To live
                    together as man and wife, usually, though not
                    necessarily, implying sexual intercourse.”
                    Black’s Law Dictionary, Third Edition,
                    defines the meaning of cohabitation, as:
                    “Living together, living together as man and
                    wife; sexual intercourse.”       Cohabitation
                    includes other marital duties besides marital
                    intercourse.

             Id. at 85-86, 33 S.E.2d at 490-91.

Rehm v. Rehm, 104 N.C. App. 490, 493, 409 S.E.2d 723, 724 (1991).

      In its Order, the trial court stated that it was applying the statutory definition

of “cohabitation” found in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50-16.9(b). We agree with Husband that

the statutory definition of “cohabitation” does not per se dictate the proper

interpretation of “cohabitation” as used in the Agreement. Rather, “[t]he intention of

the parties is the controlling guide to [a contract’s] interpretation.” Duke v. Mut. Life

Ins. Co. of N.Y., 286 N.C. 244, 247, 210 S.E.2d 187, 189 (1974).

                                          -5-
                                 MEEKER V. MEEKER

                                  Opinion of the Court

      However, given the similarities between the statutory definition and the

definition found in our case law, we conclude that any error by the trial court in

relying on the statutory definition does not warrant a new trial on the issue of

cohabitation. The trial court made extensive findings regarding the nature of Wife’s

relationship with the man she was caring for which support its determination that

Wife was not cohabiting under either the definition of cohabitation found in the

statute or under our case law. We note that Husband does not point to any evidence

that either he or Wife intended some other interpretation to control, and that the

Agreement otherwise allows Wife to “reside” with anyone she deems fit.

      Specifically, based on competent evidence, the trial court found the following

concerning Wife’s relationship with her male friend: Wife and the man engaged in a

sexual relationship earlier in their relationship; however, their sexual relationship

did not continue. Wife, though, did begin staying most nights at the man’s home for

two years. However, she did so in order to care for him, as the man’s mental health

was deteriorating. But, at all times, Wife maintained a separate residence. She did

not keep clothes at the man’s home. They did not sleep in the same room. They never

showed any public displays of affection. They did not share expenses. She did not

benefit financially from the relationship. She did no chores at his house. And “[t]here

                                         -6-
                                        MEEKER V. MEEKER

                                         Opinion of the Court

has been no assumption of marital duties, rights and/or obligations between [Wife]

and [the man], that are associated with married people.”2

                                   B. Specific Performance Order

       Husband makes several arguments challenging the trial court’s authority to

grant Wife the remedy of specific performance in its Order.

       Our Supreme Court has held that specific performance may be an appropriate

remedy to enforce payment obligations under a separation agreement. Moore v.

Moore, 297 N.C. 14, 17, 252 S.E.2d 735, 738 (1979), overruled on other grounds by

Marks v. Marks, 316 N.C. 447, 342 S.E.2d 859 (1986). More recently, the Court stated

that if the trial court finds “the state of defendant’s finances warrants it, the trial

judge may order specific performance of all or any part of the separation agreement

unless plaintiff otherwise has an adequate remedy at law.” Cavenaugh v. Cavenaugh,

317 N.C. 652, 658, 347 S.E.2d 19, 23 (1986).

       Indeed, our Court has recently reiterated that “[a] separation agreement may

be enforced through the equitable remedy of specific performance”; that “[s]pecific

       2 In its Order, the trial court placed the burden on Husband to show that Wife was cohabiting,

holding that Husband had “failed to prove by the greater weight of the evidence that [Wife] has
cohabited[.]” Certainly, if Husband’s obligation was to pay court-ordered alimony, the burden would
be on him to show that Wife was cohabiting to avoid his obligation to continue paying. See, e.g.,
Cunningham v. Cunningham, 345 N.C. 430, 438, 480 S.E.2d 403, 407 (1997). However, since the
Agreement was never incorporated by the trial court, contract principles apply. And for a breach of
contract claim, the burden is typically on the party alleging the breach. See, e.g., Cater v. Baker, 172
N.C. App. 441, 445, 617 S.E.2d 113, 116 (2005). Husband makes no argument that the trial court
improperly placed on him the burden of proving that wife was cohabiting in this contract case.
Accordingly, we do not address this issue.

                                                 -7-
                                 MEEKER V. MEEKER

                                  Opinion of the Court

performance is appropriate if the remedy at law is inadequate, the obligor can

perform, and the obligee has performed her obligations”; and that “damages are

usually an inadequate remedy in the context of separation agreements.” Diener v.

Brown, __ N.C. App. __, __, 892 S.E.2d 212, 215 (2023).

      In its Order, the trial court decreed that Husband “is ordered to specifically

perform under the contract for the payment of [spousal support]; and [Husband’s]

obligation shall be ongoing in the future”; that there were fifteen missed payments

that were due at the time the Order was entered; and that Husband’s “failure to pay

alimony will be ongoing.”

      In their respective briefs, Husband and Wife agree that the remedy of specific

performance granted by the trial court in the July 2021 Order only applied to

Husband’s obligation to make monthly payments going forward and, otherwise, did

not apply to the fifteen months of arrearages. For instance, Husband contends the

trial court erred in ordering specific performance as to his obligation to pay the

arrearages, because the trial court failed to determine that Wife lacked an adequate

remedy at law. And Wife contends that “[t]he Specific Performance Order states what

[Husband] was obligated to do under the Agreement and what he is now obligated to

do under the court order. The court does not order Defendant to actually perform

payment of the arrears at this time; therefore, it was not necessary to make a finding

or conclusion that [Wife] lacks an adequate remedy at law to collect the arrears.”

                                         -8-
                                 MEEKER V. MEEKER

                                   Opinion of the Court

      Given the language in the Order including the lack of findings regarding

Husband’s ability to pay arrearages, we likewise construe the language of the Order

concerning the arrearages as a statement that they were owed and not as a decree of

specific performance concerning those arrearages.

      We now address whether the trial court erred in its Order by decreeing that

Husband specifically perform his obligation under the Agreement to make monthly

$7,577.78 support payments to Wife as they become due going forward.

      It is true, as Wife notes, that the parties agreed in the Agreement itself that

remedies at law would be inadequate for any breach thereof. However, our Court has

held that such a contractual provision does not relieve a party from her obligation to

otherwise show to the court that her remedies at law are, indeed, inadequate:

             Plaintiff first argues that the Settlement Agreement
             expressly requires specific performance upon a party’s
             breach. Upon review, we determine the Settlement
             Agreement does not extinguish Plaintiff’s burden to prove
             the requirements for specific performance.

Reeder v. Carter, 226 N.C. App. 270, 276, 740 S.E.2d 913, 918 (2013).

      In any event, our Supreme Court has held that specific performance “will not

be decreed against a defendant who is incapable of complying with his contract[,]”

Cavenaugh, 317 N.C. at 657, 347 S.E.2d at 23, and that “when a defendant has offered

evidence tending to show that he is unable to fulfill his obligations under a separation

agreement . . . the trial judge must make findings of fact concerning the defendant’s

                                          -9-
                                 MEEKER V. MEEKER

                                   Opinion of the Court

ability to carry out the terms of the agreement before ordering specific performance.”

Id.

      Here, Husband put at issue his ability to pay $7,577.78 per month going

forward. In its Order, the trial court found that Husband’s income and assets had

decreased after he had sold his business and started a new one. The trial court,

though, made no determination that Husband had the ability to pay $7,577.78 per

month or otherwise to what amount Husband could pay. Rather, the trial court

merely determined that Husband had “the ability to comply partially or in whole” in

making the full monthly payments. Accordingly, the trial court’s findings fail to

support its Order directing specific performance. We, therefore, vacate the portion of

the trial court’s order directing Husband to specifically perform his obligation to pay

monthly spousal support going forward.

      We note Husband’s argument that the trial court failed to determine whether

Wife otherwise has an adequate remedy at law. However, since we are vacating the

portion of the Order directing specific performance, we do not reach this or the other

arguments of Husband. On remand, the trial court may reconsider whether Wife is

entitled to a decree of specific performance.

                              C. Civil Contempt Order

      Husband next argues the trial court erred by entering the Contempt Order,

finding Husband in contempt for failing to pay the arrearages and setting forth purge

previsions, months after entering the Order. We agree.

                                          - 10 -
                                 MEEKER V. MEEKER

                                   Opinion of the Court

      Generally, a trial court has no jurisdiction to enforce its order by contempt

while that order is on appeal. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-294 (providing that a perfected

appeal “stays all further proceedings in the court below upon the judgment appealed

from, or upon the matters embraced therein”); see Lowder v. All Star Mills, Inc., 301

N.C. 561, 582, 273 S.E.2d 247, 259 (1981) (holding that upon a party noticing an

appeal, “the court lost jurisdiction to take further action on the contempt matter”).

      Here, based on the record before us, it does not appear the trial court had

jurisdiction to enter the Contempt Order. The record shows Husband noticed his

appeal from the Order in July 2021, four months before the trial court held a hearing

regarding Husband’s alleged contempt of that Order and entered its Contempt Order

finding Husband in civil contempt of the Order.

      We recognized that our General Assembly has provided “[n]otwithstanding the

provisions of G.S. 1-294 . . . an order for the periodic payment of alimony that has

been appealed to the appellate division is enforceable in the trial court by proceedings

for civil contempt during the pendency of the appeal.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50-16.7(j)

(2021). However, here, the Order was not one directing the payment of “alimony.”

No court had ever directed Husband to pay alimony. Rather, the Order directed

Husband to pay a contractual obligation. Therefore, the trial court had no jurisdiction

to enforce its Order through civil contempt after Husband properly noticed his appeal

from that Order. We, therefore, must vacate the Contempt Order.

                                          - 11 -
                                MEEKER V. MEEKER

                                 Opinion of the Court

                               D.     Other Matters

      In the “Conclusion” section of his brief, Husband asks our Court, in part, “to

remand the cause for entry of an order dismissing [Wife’s] claim for specific

performance, with instructions for (1) reimbursement of sums unjustly paid by

[Husband] to [Wife], and (2) determination of reasonable attorney’s fees owed by Wife

to Husband for her breach of contract.”

      Regarding the request for “reimbursement of sums unjustly paid,” it appears

Husband is requesting an order on remand that he be reimbursed the $38,800 he paid

to Wife in November 2021 as a purge condition under the Contempt Order. Though

we are vacating the Contempt Order itself, we cannot say that it would be unjust for

Wife to retain the $38,800 paid to her by Husband in November 2021. Indeed, we are

affirming the trial court’s findings in the earlier Order that Wife had not cohabited

and that Husband owed Wife $113,666.70 in arrearages. And Husband has not

otherwise shown why it would be unjust for Wife to retain the $38,000 paid to her by

Husband to reduce the arrearages he owes.

      We find no merit in Husband’s request that he be awarded attorney’s fees for

Wife’s breach of contract. First, we affirm the trial court’s determination that Wife

has not cohabited. Further, cohabitation by the Wife would not be a “breach” of the

Agreement. Wife is free to cohabitate, as she is to remarry. Rather, cohabitation by

Wife merely terminates Husband’s obligation to continue paying spousal support.

                                          - 12 -
                                 MEEKER V. MEEKER

                                  Opinion of the Court

                                III.   Conclusion

      We affirm the trial court’s finding in the Order that Wife has not cohabited,

and that Husband continues to be obligated to pay Wife spousal support, including

arrearages. We vacate the portion of the trial court’s Order granting Wife the remedy

of specific performance concerning Husband’s obligation to pay her spousal support.

And we vacate the Contempt Order, as the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter that

order while the original Order was on appeal.

      We remand the matter for further proceedings. On remand, the trial court

may, in its discretion, take on further evidence, make new findings, and order relief

(including, for example, a money judgment on arrearages still owed) supported by its

findings and conclusions.

      AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

      Judges MURPHY and THOMPSON concur.

                                         - 13 -