Preview:

NO. COA10-376 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 21 December 2010 L'TANYA MOORE, Plaintiff, v. OLUSOGA MILES ONAFOWORA, Defendant. Appeal by defendant from orders entered 13 July 2009 and 26 August 2009 by Judge Donnie Hoover in Mecklenburg County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 26 October 2010. Mecklenburg County No. 07 CVD 8171(DH)

James A. Warren for plaintiff-appellee. Horack, Talley, Pharr & Lowndes, P.A., by Kary C. Watson and Lauren M. Vaughn, for defendant-appellant. BRYANT, Judge. Because defendant submitted incomplete financial records for 2008 and 2009 and the most complete records for 2007, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in using the 2007 records to aid in determining defendant's income in 2009. Accordingly, we

affirm the trial court's determination of defendant's child support obligation. Procedural History On 26 April 2007, plaintiff-mother L'Tanya Moore (Moore) filed a complaint for child custody and child support for minor child M. Onafowora, born 31 December 2000, as well as counsel fees. On 27

June 2007, after finding that Moore and defendant Olusoga Miles Onafowora (Onafowora) were the parents of the minor child, District

-2Court Judge Norman T. Owens entered an order for temporary custody and temporary child support. The trial court noted Onafowora's

failure to appear and produce documentation and found that instead of coming to court, [Onafowora] on the morning of [the hearing] picked up the minor child at day care after [Moore] had dropped the child off and apparently took the minor child to Durham, North Carolina where he has arbitrarily decided and informed [Moore] that the child will spend the next two (2) weeks. In support of its temporary order, the trial court found that the minor child has resided almost exclusively with Moore, and that Moore earned a gross monthly income of $1,512.29 and incurred a monthly health insurance premium attributable to the minor child of $228.48. Further, Onafowora did not provide the court with any

documentation of his income, as set out in his subpoena, did not respond to the Request for Production of Documentation, and did not comply with the local rules concerning the filing of an Affidavit of Financial Standing. The court concluded that it was in the best

interest of the minor child that Moore be awarded the minor child's care, custody, and control. On 12 July 2007, Onafowora made a motion to set aside the order and stay its enforcement and, on 7 August 2007, made a motion to dismiss the custody action and change the venue of the child support action. In an order filed 26 October 2007, the trial court On 23 January 2008, Onaforowa filed a On 8 December 2008, the trial

denied Onafowora's motions.

motion to establish visitation.

court entered a memorandum of judgment/order in which Onaforowa was granted visitation every other weekend and every Wednesday. In the

-3interim, on 30 July 2008, Onafowora submitted an affidavit of income information to the trial court indicating that his average monthly gross income in 2008 was $3,587.82. On 2 February 2009, the matter came before District Court Judge Donnie Hoover for a hearing on child custody, visitation, child support, and child support arrearage. On 13 July 2009, the

trial court entered an order in which it found that, in 2007, Moore earned a gross income of $3,719.581 per month; in 2008, $3,927.67 per month; and at the time of the hearing, Moore earned a gross income of $5,260.12 per month. On behalf of the minor child, Moore

incurred insurance premiums of $186.46 per month and a work related child care cost of $262.50. Taking into account bank deposits from sources other than Onafowora's employer, the court found that Onafowora's gross income per month was $11,667.60 in 2007;

$11,791.10 in 2008; and at the time of the hearing, $11,967.61 per month. Based on these new figures, the trial court recalculated

Onafowora's child support obligation and determined that, from May 2007 to May 2009, he was in arrears $14,353.80. Onafowora was

ordered to make child support payments in the amount of $1,293.79 and payments on his arrearage in the amount of $106.21 for a total monthly payment amount of $1,400.00. Regarding custody and visitation, the trial court found that "[Moore] has been and remains the primary parent of the minor

The trial Standing, relied Temporary Child gross income due

1

court found that Moore's Affidavit of Financial upon in the order for Temporary Child Custody and Support, incorrectly reflected Moore's monthly to a mistake by her attorney.

-4child, being the parent who has consistently seen to the emotional, physical, and financial needs of the minor child." Accordingly,

the trial court concluded that it was in the best interests of the minor child that her care, custody, and control be vested with Moore and that the minor child have visitation with Onafowora. On 26 August 2009, the trial court entered an order requiring Onafowora to pay Moore's counsel fees in the amount of $20,000.00. Onafowora appeals. ____________________________________ On appeal, Onafowora raises two issues: Did the trial court err in (I) setting his child support obligation and (II) awarding Moore sole custody of the minor child. For the reasons set forth

below, we affirm the trial court's decision. I Onafowora first argues that the trial court erred in setting his child support obligation by erroneously imputing current income to him based on bank statements from previous years. We disagree.

"When determining a child support award, a trial judge has a high level of discretion, not only in setting the amount of the award, but also in establishing an appropriate remedy." State ex

rel. Williams v. Williams, 179 N.C. App. 838, 839, 635 S.E.2d 495, 496 (2006) (citing Taylor v. Taylor, 128 N.C. App. 180, 182, 493 S.E.2d 819, 820 (1997)). "Child support orders entered by a trial

court are accorded substantial deference by appellate courts and our review is limited to a determination of whether there was a clear abuse of discretion." Mason v. Erwin, 157 N.C. App. 284,

-5287, 579 S.E.2d 120, 122 (2003) (citing Leary v. Leary, 152 N.C. App. 438, 441, 567 S.E.2d 834, 837 (2002)). [A]bsent a clear abuse of discretion, a judge's determination of what is a proper amount of child support will not be disturbed on appeal. . . . A judge is subject to reversal for abuse of discretion only upon a showing by the litigant that the challenged actions are manifestly unsupported by reason. Bowers v. Bowers, 141 N.C. App. 729, 731, 541 S.E.2d 508, 509 (2001) (quoting Plott v. Plott, 313 N.C. 63, 69, 326 S.E.2d 863, 868 (1985)) (internal quotations omitted). Under North Carolina General Statutes, section 50-13.4, (c) Payments ordered for the support of a minor child shall be in such amount as to meet the reasonable needs of the child for health, education, and maintenance, having due regard to the estates, earnings, conditions, accustomed standard of living of the child and the parties, the child care and homemaker contributions of each party, and other facts of the particular case. N.C. Gen. Stat.

Download 10-376-8.pdf

South Carolina Law