Jonna v. Yaramada
| Decision Date | 18 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. COA18-1046,COA18-1046 |
| Citation | 848 S.E.2d 33 |
| Parties | Srinivas JONNA, Plaintiff, v. Sudha YARAMADA, Defendant. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Plaintiff-appellant Srinivas Jonna, pro se.
Blanco Tackabery & Matamoros, P.A., by Chad A. Archer, Greensboro, for defendant-appellee.
Young Moore and Henderson, P.A., Raleigh, by Angela Farag Craddock, court-appointed amicus curiae.
Plaintiff-Appellant Srinivas Jonna ("Plaintiff-Father") appeals from several orders entered in the parties’ domestic matter. He argues that the trial court erred by (1) incorrectly calculating his child support obligation; (2) denying his motions for a new trial; (3) sanctioning him under Rule 11 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure ; and (4) granting Defendant-Mother primary physical custody of their minor child. Defendant-Appellee Sudha Yaramada ("Defendant-Mother") petitions this Court to issue a writ of certiorari so that we may review whether the trial court correctly applied the North Carolina Child Support Guidelines (the "Guidelines").
For the reasons that follow, we vacate the 20 November 2017 child support order and remand for further proceedings. We reverse that part of the trial court's 8 December 2017 order imposing sanctions on Plaintiff-Father. The 31 March 2017 custody order and that part of the 8 December 2017 order denying Plaintiff-Father's Rule 59 motions are affirmed.
The parties are Indian citizens and residents of Wake County, and the parents of one child, who was born in 2013. They were married in 2009, and separated in December 2015.
Plaintiff-Father sought "an immediate Protective Order granting [him] the temporary exclusive care, custody and control of the minor child," together with an injunction prohibiting Defendant-Mother from having any contact with him or the child. That day, the trial court entered a protective order, but declined to grant Plaintiff-Father the relief he sought, instead restraining both parties from removing the child from the State of North Carolina.
On 16 December 2015, the parties executed a Memorandum of Judgment/Order, which the trial court entered. The order provided, inter alia , that Defendant-Mother would have primary physical custody of the minor child, Plaintiff-Father would have secondary physical custody, and the parties would share legal custody, pending a full hearing on the matter. The parties agreed to alternate actual physical custody of the minor child on a weekly basis.
On 16 February 2016, Defendant-Mother filed an answer and counterclaim seeking temporary and permanent legal and physical custody of the parties’ minor child. On 1 September 2016, the trial court entered a consent order executed by the parties, allowing Plaintiff-Father to care for the minor child while Defendant-Mother traveled to India, and providing that Defendant-Mother could exercise "make up" time with the child upon her return, with the regular custodial arrangement then resuming.
On 26 January 2017, the custody case came on for hearing. Both the parties were represented by counsel and presented evidence.
Defendant-Mother testified that Plaintiff-Father's allegations in his ex parte complaint/motion for temporary custody and injunctive relief concerning her mental instability and other issues were baseless. She also testified that she lives in a three-bedroom apartment with a roommate and that the minor child had his own room when he stayed with her, whereas Plaintiff-Father's home was not suitable for the minor child. In addition, Defendant-Mother offered into evidence police reports of an incident of domestic violence and photographs of the injuries she sustained when Plaintiff-Father assaulted Defendant-Mother. According to Defendant-Mother, Plaintiff-Father would become aggressive at times, and "punch the walls and doors" when he lost his temper, as well as assault her.
Defendant-Mother also testified that Plaintiff-Father has a "controlling attitude." For example, in 2015, Defendant-Mother and the minor child visited India, and the child was scheduled to visit India with Plaintiff-Father immediately afterward. Because each flight from the United States to India takes 22 to 30 hours, and the minor child was an infant, Defendant-Mother tried to arrange for the minor child to stay in India for three days with his paternal grandparents until Plaintiff-Father arrived. Plaintiff-Father refused, insisting that the minor child return to the United States with Defendant-Mother, only to return to India with him 72 hours later. Defendant-Mother explained that Plaintiff-Father "wants to have his way or no way."
The parties also disagreed on whether to have the minor child attend daycare. Defendant-Mother thought it was in the child's best interest; Plaintiff-Father wanted the child to be cared for by his parents, who live with him in his home.
Despite his allegations, Plaintiff-Father repeatedly stated at trial that the current shared custody arrangement was working well. He testified that his parents care for the minor child while he works, as well as when he plays cricket. Plaintiff-Father also testified about an ongoing legal issue in India between him and Defendant-Mother, in which he did not want the minor child involved, but said that he did not have any objection to either parent traveling with the minor child. When asked what action he wanted the trial court to take with regard to custody of the minor child, Plaintiff-Father stated, "I think the current arrangement [alternating weeks] is working very well, and we both communicate well about the child."
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court announced that In addition, the trial court stated that the child would continue to attend daycare.
Although Plaintiff-Father was represented by counsel, on 6 February 2017, he filed a pro se "Motion to Open Evidence" prior to the trial court's entry of the child custody order. In response, on 15 February 2017, Defendant-Mother filed a "Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions." On 22 March 2017, counsel for Plaintiff-Father withdrew from the case.
By order entered 31 March 2017, the trial court concluded that it would be in the best interest of the child for the parties to share legal custody, with Defendant-Mother having primary physical custody and Plaintiff-Father having secondary physical custody. As relevant to this appeal, the order provided that: (1) "[t]he minor child shall stay in daycare until he starts school for at least a half day, each weekday"; (2) "either parent may take the minor child to India for up to five consecutive weeks each year until he is in school"; (3) after the child starts school, "either parent may take the minor child to India for up to five consecutive weeks each year during summer break ... or up to two consecutive weeks at any time during the year"; and (4) "[i]f a parent cho[o]ses not to travel to India with the child, he or she shall have two uninterrupted weeks’ vacation within the United States" with the minor child.
On 11 April 2017, Defendant-Mother filed a motion for prospective and retroactive "child support consistent with the North Carolina Child Support Guidelines."
Through new counsel,1 Plaintiff-Father filed a Rule 59 motion, and on 22 May 2017, Plaintiff-Father filed his "Amended Motion in the Cause" pursuant to Rule 59, seeking a new trial on the grounds of irregularity at trial, fraud, surprise, and newly discovered evidence. On 9 June 2017, Defendant-Mother responded to Plaintiff-Father's amended Rule 59 motion with her motion for Rule 11 sanctions and a motion to dismiss.
A hearing was held on 13 June 2017, at which the trial court addressed Plaintiff-Father's amended Rule 59 motion for a new trial and Defendant-Mother's motion for sanctions. After hearing the arguments of counsel, the trial court stated, "I don't find any grounds under Rule 59; quite frankly, I find that this is frivolous, and I am going to find that pursuant to Rule 11, [Plaintiff-Father] is going to pay the attorney's fees for [Defendant-Mother]."
On 25 July 2017, the trial court held the child support hearing. Plaintiff-Father proceeded pro se , and Defendant-Mother was represented by counsel. On 20 November 2017, the trial court entered its child support order, requiring, inter alia , that Plaintiff-Father (1) contribute $680.39 per month to the support of the parties’ minor child beginning 1 August 2015; (2) pay arrearages of $5,539.18 to Defendant-Mother at the rate of $230.80 per month; and (3) pay 45% of the minor child's uninsured health care expenses. The trial court also ordered that the parties exchange copies of their W-2s and other evidence of their income annually.
By order entered 8 December 2017, the trial court denied Plaintiff-Father's motion for a new trial and imposed sanctions on him. The trial court found that Plaintiff-Father "ha[d] not forecast[ ] evidence that would change" its prior custody ruling, and that "[t]here [wa]s no basis for the Rule 59 motion filed by Plaintiff[-Father]."
On 15 December 2017, Pla...
To continue reading
Request your trial