Stark v. Ratashara, COA05-1119.
| Decision Date | 02 May 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. COA05-1119.,COA05-1119. |
| Citation | 628 S.E.2d 471 |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Christopher P. STARK, Plaintiff, v. Janaki RATASHARA, Defendant. |
Christopher Paul Stark, pro se, for plaintiff-appellant.
R. Michael Bruce, Danbury, for defendant-appellee.
Christopher P. Stark ("plaintiff") appeals from the trial court's orders awarding alimony in favor of Janaki Ratashara-Stark ("defendant"), and denying plaintiff's motion for new trial.
On 27 November 2002, plaintiff filed a complaint for absolute divorce on the ground of one-year separation, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50-6. On 13 January 2003, defendant filed her answer, and stated that "the claims for alimony and equitable distribution pending this action are to be reserved." Defendant failed to include a counterclaim for alimony in her answer, and failed to file a separate action for alimony. On 18 February 2003, after hearing evidence from plaintiff and defendant, the Honorable Charles M. Neaves entered an order granting an absolute divorce. The trial court found that "[t]he plaintiff has requested the court for an Equitable Distribution hearing regarding the remaining marital property," but the trial court did not enter any findings regarding alimony.
On 2 October 2003, defendant filed an amended answer and counterclaim for alimony and equitable distribution, and plaintiff filed his answer. On 20 December 2004, the Honorable Otis M. Oliver entered an order awarding alimony to defendant. On 16 February 2005, the trial court denied plaintiff's amended motion for new trial. Plaintiff appeals from the 17 December 2004 order awarding alimony and the 16 February 2005 order denying plaintiff's amended motion for new trial.
On appeal, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred because: (1) the order awarding alimony contained findings of fact that were unsupported by the evidence, and the findings did not support the conclusions of law; (2) the trial court failed to grant a new trial after plaintiff obtained an affidavit that defendant withheld during discovery; (3) the trial court failed to impeach defendant as a witness; (4) the trial court denied plaintiff due process of law; and (5) the trial court failed to enter findings of fact to support its alimony award regarding the duration, amount, and form of alimony payments.
Before we address plaintiff's substantive claims, we first must address whether the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to enter the order awarding alimony.
Our jurisdiction recognizes that when a party has secured an absolute divorce, it is beyond the power of the court thereafter to enter an order awarding alimony. Mitchell v. Mitchell, 270 N.C. 253, 258, 154 S.E.2d 71, 75 (1967). Specifically, North Carolina General Statutes § 50-11 provides:
(a) After a judgment of divorce from the bonds of matrimony, all rights arising out of the marriage shall cease and determine except as hereinafter set out, and either party may marry again without restriction arising from the dissolved marriage.
(c) A divorce obtained pursuant to G.S. 50-5.1 or G.S. 50-6 shall not affect the rights of either spouse with respect to any action for alimony or postseparation support pending at the time the judgment for divorce is granted. Furthermore, a judgment of absolute divorce shall not impair or destroy the right of a spouse to receive alimony or postseparation support or affect any other rights provided for such spouse under any judgment or decree of a court rendered before or at the time of the judgment of absolute divorce.
N.C. Gen.Stat. § 50-11 (2005).
Our Supreme Court has stated that a party's filed counterclaim is sufficient to constitute an action pending when judgment of absolute divorce is entered. Stegall v. Stegall, 336 N.C. 473, 474-77, 444 S.E.2d 177, 178-79 (1994). Furthermore, a person must apply specifically for the claim by cross-action or by a separate action, and the bare reservation by a trial court only preserves the claim for the party who has asserted the right prior to judgment of absolute divorce. See Lutz v. Lutz, 101 N.C.App. 298, 301-03, 399 S.E.2d 385, 387-88 (1991), disc. rev. denied, 328 N.C. 732, 404 S.E.2d 871 (1991); see also Gilbert v. Gilbert, 111 N.C.App. 233, 431 S.E.2d 805 (1993). While we recognize that Lutz applies to equitable distribution, we see no reason why alimony should not be treated the same for preservation purposes.
In the present case, on 27 November 2002, plaintiff filed a complaint for absolute divorce on the ground of a one-year separation, pursuant to N.C. Gen.Stat. § 50-6. Plaintiff alleged that "there are no claims for support, or alimony pending in this action or any other action filed in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re K.J.L., COA08-284-2.
...is immaterial.'" In re T.B., J.B., C.B., 177 N.C.App. 790, 791, 629 S.E.2d 895, 896 (2006) (quoting Stark v. Ratashara, 177 N.C.App. 449, 451-52, 628 S.E.2d 471, 473 (citations omitted), disc. review denied, 360 N.C. 536, 633 S.E.2d 826 In Peoples v. Norwood, our Supreme Court stated: The p......
-
State v. Collins
...a court by consent, waiver or estoppel, and failure to demur or object to the jurisdiction is immaterial." Stark v. Ratashara, 177 N.C.App. 449, 451–52, 628 S.E.2d 471, 473 (2006). Trial counsel's failure to move to dismiss the charges based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction does not......
-
In re C.T.
...to the jurisdiction is immaterial.'" In re T.B., ___ N.C.App. ___, ___, 629 S.E.2d 895, 896 (2006) (quoting Stark v. Ratashara, ___ N.C.App. ___, ___, 628 S.E.2d 471, 473, disc. review denied, sub nom Stark v. Ratashara, 360 N.C. 636, 633 S.E.2d 826 (2006)) (citations omitted). A court's ge......
-
In re T.P.
...a court by consent, waiver or estoppel, and failure to demur or object to the jurisdiction is immaterial." Stark v. Ratashara, 177 N.C.App. 449, 451-52, 628 S.E.2d 471, 473 (2006) (citations omitted). "The issue of subject matter jurisdiction may be considered by the court at any time, and ......