Jonna v. Yaramada
| Docket Number | COA22-954 |
| Decision Date | 16 January 2024 |
| Parties | SRINIVAS JONNA, Plaintiff, v. SUDHA YARAMADA, Defendant. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Heard in the Court of Appeals 17 October 2023.
Appeal by plaintiff from order entered 14 May 2021 by Judge Lori G Christian in Wake County No. 15 CVD 16510 District Court.
Plaintiff-appellant Srinivas Jonna, pro se.
Defendant-appellee Sudha Yaramada, pro se.
Plaintiff Srinivas Jonna ("Plaintiff-Father") appeals from the trial court's child support order entered on remand from this Court. After careful review, we vacate and remand for the entry of additional findings of fact.
The full background of this matter can be found in this Court's prior opinion in Jonna v. Yaramada ("Jonna I"), 273 N.C.App. 93, 96-100, 848 S.E.2d 33, 39-41 (2020). Pertinent to the case before us, in Jonna I we vacated the trial court's 20 November 2017 child support order and remanded to the trial court "to make additional findings as to whether the number of overnights that the minor child has with Plaintiff-Father exceeds 122 overnights, and if so, whether that is the result of extended visitation or whether the custodial arrangement is a situation involving a true sharing of expenses" warranting the use of Worksheet B under the North Carolina Child Support Guidelines ("the Guidelines"). Id. at 123, 848 S.E.2d at 55 (cleaned up). We also "conclude[d] that the trial court erred in sanctioning Plaintiff-Father" and reversed that part of the trial court's 8 December 2017 order that imposed Rule 11 sanctions. Id. at 108, 848 S.E.2d at 46.
On remand, the matter came on for hearing on 11 January 2021. On 14 May 2021, the trial court entered an order concluding that it was "proper . . . to use Worksheet A in calculating the prospective child support obligation because Plaintiff[-Father]'s international travel with the minor child constitutes extended vacation." Accordingly, the trial court ordered:
Further, in light of our reversal on the issue of Rule 11 sanctions in Jonna I, the trial court ordered that "[t]he Rule 11 sanctions allowed against Plaintiff[-Father] pursuant to this Court's December 8, 2017 Order are hereby dismissed."
Plaintiff-Father filed timely notice of appeal.[1]
Plaintiff-Father contends that "the trial court erred as a matter of law in using Worksheet A without making any finding on the number of overnights the child spent with each parent" and by finding that his "trips to India with the minor child are not part of regular visitation" and instead were "extended visitation." On this issue, we remand for the entry of additional findings of fact consistent with our mandate in Jonna I.
Plaintiff-Father also argues that the trial court erred by failing to "reimburse [him] for the amount he has already paid" to Defendant-Mother to satisfy the sanctions imposed by the trial court, which this Court reversed in Jonna I. Id. at 113, 848 S.E.2d at 49. However, as discussed below, this argument is dismissed.
"A trial court's child support order is accorded substantial deference by appellate courts and our review is limited to a determination of whether there was a clear abuse of discretion." Id. at 122, 848 S.E.2d at 54 (cleaned up). This Court reviews de novo "issues regarding the interpretation of its own mandate[.]" Berens v. Berens, 284 N.C.App. 595, 601, 876 S.E.2d 680, 685 (2022).
"The calculation of child support is governed by [the] Guidelines established by the Conference of Chief District Court Judges." Craven Cty. ex rel. Wooten v. Hageb, 277 N.C.App. 586, 589, 861 S.E.2d 571, 574 (2021) (citation omitted). "The Guidelines apply as a rebuttable presumption in all legal proceedings involving the child support obligation of a parent." Jonna I, 273 N.C.App. at 122, 848 S.E.2d at 54 (citation omitted).
"A parent's presumptive child support obligation under the [G]uidelines must be determined using one of the attached child support worksheets." N.C. Child Support Guidelines, at 5 (2019). As we explained in Jonna I, the issue in this case is whether the trial court should use Worksheet A or Worksheet B to determine child support under the Guidelines:
The Guidelines provide that Worksheet A is to be used when one parent has primary physical custody of all of the children for whom support is being determined. A parent (or third party) has primary physical custody of a child if the child lives with that parent (or custodian) for 243 nights or more during the year; the use of Worksheet B is appropriate when both parents share custody of a child if the child lives with each parent for at least 123 nights during the year and each parent assumes financial responsibility for the child's expenses during the time the child lives with that parent.
273 N.C.App. at 122, 848 S.E.2d at 54 (cleaned up).
In Jonna I, the trial court determined that it was appropriate to use Worksheet B in light of the parties' child custody order, which "permits each parent to have physical custody of the child for five weeks of uninterrupted international travel per year" in order to "accommodate the parties' commitment to regularly travel to India with the minor child[.]" Id. at 123, 848 S.E.2d at 55. However, this Court observed on appeal that "the parties' extensive travel plans do not necessarily justify the use of Worksheet B." Id. We explained:
It is not appropriate to use Worksheet B in cases involving extended visitation. The explicit instructions set forth on Worksheet B address the issue of extended visitation: "Worksheet B should be used only if both parents have custody of the child(ren) for at least one-third of the year and the situation involves a true sharing of expenses, rather than extended visitation with one parent that exceeds 122 overnights." If the trips to India are extended visitation, rather than a "situation involv[ing] a true sharing of expenses" as contemplated by the instructions for Worksheet B, that travel time should not be included in determining the number of overnights the child would stay with each parent.
Id. (cleaned up).
As a result, we vacated the child support order and remanded to the trial court with instructions:
Accordingly, we vacate the child support order, and remand for the trial court to make additional findings as to whether the number of overnights that the minor child has with Plaintiff-Father exceeds 122 overnights, and if so, whether that is the result of extended visitation or whether the custodial arrangement is a "situation involv[ing] a true sharing of expenses." Whether additional evidence or a hearing is necessary, or whether the case may be decided based on the existing record, is in the discretion of the trial court.
Id. at 123-24, 848 S.E.2d at 55.
"On the remand of a case after appeal, the mandate of the reviewing court is binding on the lower court, and must be strictly followed, without variation and departure from the mandate of the appellate court." Collins v. Simms, 257 NC 1, 11, 125 S.E.2d 298, 306 (1962) (Parker, J, concurring). On remand in the present case, the trial court did not make any finding of fact "as to whether the number of overnights that the minor child has with Plaintiff-Father exceeds 122 overnights," as required by our mandate. Jonna I, 273 N.C.App. at 123, 848 S.E.2d at 55. We are cognizant of the heavy demands of the trial court's docket; however, this oversight requires that we vacate the trial court's order and remand for the entry of additional findings of fact consistent with our mandate in Jonna I. See Sullivan v. Woody, 287 N.C.App. 199, 206, 882 S.E.2d 707, 712 (2022) ().
We express no opinion on the merits of the parties' arguments. We merely reiterate that "[i]f the trips to India are extended visitation, rather than a situation involving a true sharing of expenses as contemplated by the instructions for Worksheet B, that travel time should not be included in determining the number of overnights the child would stay with each parent." Jonna I, 273 N.C.App. at 123, 848 S.E.2d at 55 (cleaned up).
Lastly Plaintiff-Father argues that the trial court erred by failing to "reimburse [him] for the amount he has already paid" to Defendant-Mother to satisfy the sanctions imposed by the trial court, which this Court reversed in Jonna I. See id. at 113, 848 S.E.2d at 49 (). However, Plaintiff-Father has abandoned this issue by failing to cite any supporting legal authority for his argument in his...
To continue reading
Request your trial