Court Opinion

ID: 9624752
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:16:02.271445+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:08:02.197176
License: Public Domain

GREENE, Judge,
concurring in the result in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with the majority’s holding as to the validity of the memorandum of judgment/order (the memorandum) and the subsequent consent order (the formal order) and its decision to affirm Judge Culler’s child support order but reach this- conclusion using a different analysis. As to the majority’s discussion of the trial court’s contempt order, I dissent.
*52I

Temporary Order

In a recent opinion, this Court held that a temporary order for child custody may convert into a final order “when neither party requests] the calendaring of the matter [addressed in the temporary order] for a hearing within a reasonable time after the entry of the [temporary] [o]rder.” LaValley v. LaValley, -N.C. App.-,-, 564 S.E.2d 913, 915 (2002). In LaValley, this Court deemed the passage of twenty-three months between the entry of the temporary order and the filing of the plaintiffs motion in the cause seeking modification of the prior order unreasonable and concluded the temporary order had converted into a final order requiring the trial court to employ a substantial change of circumstances test. Id. at-, 564 S.E.2d at 915.
In this case, the temporary order was signed by Judge Taylor on 24 February 1997. In May 1998, the parties agreed to a mediated settlement conference on the issues of child custody and child support, and the trial court entered an order to this effect filed 8 May 1998. Subsequent to the mediated settlement conference, the parties and the trial court signed the memorandum, which was filed 17 July 1998. The formal order was, filed 25 September 1998 and was followed by Judge Honeycutt’s order filed 16 November 1998 granting defendant’s Rule 60 motion as to child support and Judge Culler’s order filed 22 December 1999 from which defendant appeals. The record thus reflects a reasonable effort by the parties to move the case along and resolve the issues of child custody and child support. Accordingly, the temporary nature of Judge Taylor’s order was preserved, obviating the need to make any findings regarding a substantial change of circumstances prior to assessing child support.
II

Memorandum Issues

A

Interplay between Memorandum and Formal Order

The memorandum signed by the parties and the trial court and filed 17 July 1998 contemplated the entry of a subsequent formal order that was to reflect the agreement contained in the memorandum. If such a formal order is identical in its terms and provisions to the memorandum, it is deemed valid. Buckingham v. Buckingham, *53134 N.C. App. 82, 87-88, 516 S.E.2d 869, 874, disc. review denied, 351 N.C. 100, 540 S.E.2d 353 (1999). While the formal order constitutes a valid order, it is, however, “merely surplusage” to the memorandum. Id. at 88, 516 S.E.2d at 874. The memorandum is the court document that represents the final judgment on the issues contained therein. Id. at 87, 516 S.E.2d at 874. In this case, the formal order was identical to the memorandum in respect to the issue of child custody and therefore valid as to this issue. As the formal order differed from the memorandum in respect to child support, the trial court properly set aside that part of the formal order upon motion by defendant.
B

Consent Requirement

Defendant argues the memorandum is invalid because the trial court never met with the parties and thus failed to examine the parties as required by Tevepaugh v. Tevepaugh, 135 N.C. App. 489, 521 S.E.2d 117 (1999). I disagree.
The memorandum includes a statement, signed by the trial court, attesting the trial court had read the terms of the agreement to the parties, inquired as to the voluntary nature of the parties’ agreement and their understanding thereof, and informed the parties of the legal effect of the memorandum. There is no evidence in the record to refute this statement. Accordingly, defendant’s argument is without merit.1
Ill

Contempt

Defendant further contends the trial court failed to make any findings that defendant’s conduct was willful.
In contempt proceedings, the trial court’s findings of facts are conclusive on appeal when supported by competent evidence. The element of willfulness is required for a finding of civil contempt .... Willfulness constitutes: (1) an ability to comply with the court order; and (2) a deliberate and intentional failure to do so.
Sowers v. Toliver, 150 N.C. App. 114, 118, 562 S.E.2d 593, 596 (2002).
*54In this case, the trial court found “defendant has had and presently has the means and ability to comply with the [child support] order,” but the trial court failed to make a finding as to whether defendant’s failure to comply with the order was “deliberate and intentional.” The trial court merely found “defendant [had] presented no evidence as to why he should not be held in wil[l]ful contempt of court.” For the reasons stated in the dissent in Shumaker v. Shumaker, 137 N.C. App. 72, 527 S.E.2d 55 (2000) (Greene, J., dissenting in part), this constituted an improper assignment to defendant of the burden of proof on the issue of willfulness. Instead, it was the trial court’s duty to make a finding whether defendant’s failure to comply with the order was indeed “deliberate and intentional.” Without such an additional finding there is no support for the trial court’s conclusion that defendant was in willful contempt. See Sowers, 150 N.C. App. at 118, 560 S.E.2d at 596.2
In summary, I agree with the majority’s decision to affirm (1) Judge Honeycutt’s denial of defendant’s motion to set aside the formal order as it relates to child custody and (2) Judge Culler’s child support order but believe the contempt order must be reversed.

. The majority further discusses the calculation and the retrospective nature of the child support awarded by Judge Culler. As these issues were not argued in defendant’s brief to this Court, I would not address them. See N.C.R. App. P. 28(a).

. I would further note the trial court erred in ordering defendant to “remain gainfully employed.” It is well established that a person can be found in contempt of a child support order for his failure to pay court-ordered support. See id. The trial court, however, cannot dictate the source of the funds from which child support is to be paid.