The Pitfalls of Self-representation

A recent North Carolina Court of Appeals opinion, Gary Michael Sluder v. Christina B. Sluder, illustrates the pitfalls for the unwary that exist for spouses who attempt to represent themselves. Here, the self-represented Defendant, Christina Sluder had her poorly plead claims for equitable distribution and alimony dismissed by the trial court. After a trial on her breach of contract claim, Christina won, but her victory was short lived as it was reversed by the Appellate Court.

Specifics of the Case

Gary and Christina Sluder were married to each other in 1999 and they separated on June 19, 1999. After they were separated and before they were divorced, Gary hand wrote and signed a document dated January 10, 2005 that stated: "I Gary M. Sluder pay to my wife Christina, the sum of on One Thousand Dollars a month in post spousal support." (emphasis added). The courts concluded that what Gary actually meant was post separation support.

Later in 2005, Gary filed for Divorce and the Divorce Judgment was entered on December 30, 2009. Apparently, Gary did not pay Christina the $1,000.00 per months addressed in the January 10, 2005 document, because prior to the entry of the Divorce Judgment, Christina filed pro se pleadings seeking post separation support based on contract from Gary. Christina also attempted, but failed, to properly plead claims for equitable distribution and alimony. Those claims were dismissed by the trial court.

After hearing the evidence, the trial court made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the uncertified agreement between the parties:

Finding of Fact 7: In early January 2005, the Plaintiff [Gary] agreed to give the Defendant one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) per month so that the Defendant could have evidence of income she would need to rent an apartment for herself and her minor children

Conclusion of Law 1: Pursuant to G.S. 52-10 the Plaintiff owes the Defendant the sum of one thousand dollars (1,000 [sic] per month for a reasonable time after promising the Defendant he would do so.

Conclusion of Law 2: That a reasonable period of time for the Plaintiff to pay the Defendant one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) per month would be eleven (11) months.

The trial court then entered judgment in favor of Christina, awarding her recovery from Gary in the amount of $11,000.00. Gary appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals

Types of Marital Contracts

As between themselves, married people can make two distinct types of contracts: (1) separation agreements, and (2) property settlements.



A separation agreement is a contract between spouses providing for marital
support rights and executed while the parties are separated or planning to
separate immediately.


A property settlement provides for the division of property held by the
spouses. Spouses may enter into a property settlement at any time, regardless of
whether they contemplate separation or divorce.



The North Carolina Supreme Court has often noted the differing purposes
underlying the two contracts. The "heart of a separation agreement is the
parties’ intention to live separate and apart forever..." In re Adamee,
291 N.C. 386, 391 (1976). However, a property settlement "contains provisions
... which might with equal propriety have been made had no separation been
contemplated." Jones v. Lewis, 243 N.C. 259, 261 (1955).

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 52-10.1 governs the execution of separation agreements. Pursuant to the statute, to be valid and enforceable a separation agreement must satisfy all of the following requirements:

•The agreement must be in writing
•The terms of the agreement must be consistent with public policy
•The agreement must be acknowledged by both of the spouses in the presence of a certifying officer as defined by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 52-10 (b).
•The certifying officer must not be a party to the contract

A certifying officer is a "... notary public, or a justice, judge, magistrate, clerk, assistant clerk, or deputy clerk of the General Court of Justice, or the equivalent or corresponding officers of the state, territory or foreign country where the acknowledgment is made." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 52-10 (b)


The execution of property settlements is governed by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 52-10 (a).

The Appeal

On appeal, Gary argued that the trail court erred by concluding the January 10, 2005 document was an enforceable agreement governed by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 52-10. Instead, Gary contended that the agreement concerned support rights made during separation and as such that it was governed by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 52-10.1. Further, because the agreement was not acknowledged by both of the parties before a certifying officer as required by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 52-10.1, Gary argued that the agreement was not enforceable. The North Carolina Court of Appeals agreed with Gary and reversed the trial court’s award of recovery to Christina because the agreement was invalid under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 52-10.1.

Social Networking Can Leave You with Egg on Your Face - Or Worse!

Social networking is all the rage. However, people involved in divorce family law disputes need to give very serious thought about whether social networking is a good idea while thier case is on-going. My best advice to anyone involved in any type of family law litigation is to shutdown all of your social networking sites. This means no Face Book, My Space, Linked In and the like.

If the reasons are not apparent, then consider the following scenarios:

SCENARIO #1: Sally and Dick are separated and they are involved in a bitter child custody dispute. One of Sally’s best friends, Betty, assumes a new name, Ginger Smith, adopts as her photo that of Ginger off the old tv show Gilligan’s Island, and sets herself up on Face Book. Ginger then sends out a friend request to Dick who accepts the invitation. Ginger and Dick begin to exchange e-mails and during their correspondence, Dick makes numerous statements about his child rearing philosophy that will not look good for him in Court. Imagine Dick’s surprise when Sally and Dick’s lawyers exchange their witness lists immediately before trial and Dick sees that Ginger Smith is listed as one of Sally’s witnesses!

SCENARIO #2: Bill and Jennifer are involved in a custody dispute. Their son is 14 months old. Jennifer takes the child with her on a road trip to visit with her parents. On the morning of the trip, Jennifer takes a photo of the baby sitting in its car seat with three tall cans of beer arranged in the seat. Jennifer posts this photo on her social networking page with the caption The only way to take a read trip with a kid! Bill sees the posting and uses it at trial as evidence to bolster his contentions that Jennifer is an unfit parent.

SCENARIO #3: Jim and Joan are separated and Joan is under a court order to pay alimony to Jim. Joan files a motion with the court asking the court to reduce the amount of alimony she has to pay and in support of her motion, Joan says she has been laid off and has no job prospects in sight. Joan then posts a to her Twitter account and says she had a fabulous interview with XYZ, Corporation and has been offered a job. Jim sees the Twitter posting and introduces it as evidence at the hearing on Joan's motion to reduce her alimony payments.

Even though social networking can be fun, the risk that something you post will come back to haunt you is very real. Under the theory of better safe than sorry, I say, shut down the social networking if you are involved in a family law dispute.

POSSIBLE CHANGES IN N.C. LAW INVOLVING HEART BALM TORTS

On May 14, 2009, House Bill 1110 passed the North Carolina House of Representatives. The legislation is entitled An Act To Clarify Procedures In Civil Actions For Alienation of Affection And Criminal Conversation. Now the Bill will move to the North Carolina Senate for its consideration.

North Carolina is one of the few states in which an allegedly wronged spouse may sue an third party under the theories of alienation of affection and criminal conversation, and if successful obtain money damages.

To prove a claim for alienation of affections the Palintiff must show the following:

1. Plaintiff and his/her husband were happily married and a genuine love and affection existed between them; and
2. Their love and affection was alienated and destroyed; and
3. The wrongful and malicious acts of Defendant produced the alienation of affections.

To prove a claim for claim for criminal conversation, a Plaintiff must present evidence demonstrating:

1. The existence of a marriage between the him/herself and his/her spouse, and
2. Sexual intercourse between Defendant and Plaintiff’s spouse during the marriage of Plaintiff and his/her spouse which occurred in North Carolina.

At present, it does not matter whether the tortious acts occurred while the spouses were still living together or if the acts in question took place at some point after the spouses had separated.

It appears that the primary purpose of House Bill 1110 is to limit the applicability of these torts to acts occurring before the spouses separated. For the purpose of House Bill 1110, the word "separation" will be interpreted according to Chapter 50 of the North Carolina General Statutes. Chapter 50 is the portion of the North Carolina General Statutes in which the majority of family law statutes are codified.

Additionally, under House Bill 1110, only natural persons, as opposed to other entities such as corporations, will be subject to such lawsuits; and, finally, the statute of limitations for these heart-balm torts will be three years from the last act giving rise to the cause of action. In my opinion, the torts of alienation of affection and criminal conversation are out-dated and should be eliminated in their entirety. However, our legislature has been reluctant to do so. Therefore, House Bill 1110 seems to offer the next best alternative to outright abolishment. If you agree, please contact your Senator and let him or her know how you feel.