From a Quarter of a Million Dollars Per Year to Uber: One Man’s Journey to the NC Court of Appeals

The North Carolina Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Lasecki v. Laseck, COA 17-79, on 19 December 2017.

The Lasecki’s

Kevin S. Lasecki and Stacey M. Lasecki were married in 1993 and three children were born to the marriage.  After nineteen years of marriage, they separated and entered into a separation agreement.  At the time, Kevin was earning over a quarter of a million dollars per year working for Bath Solutions, Inc.  As part of the agreement, Kevin was to pay $2,900.00 per month in child support and $3,600.00 per month in alimony.

Kevin Seeks to Change Agreement on Child Support

Within a year of the agreement, Kevin lost his job and found new employment with Phoenix Sales and Distribution at $160,000.00 per year.  He filed a court action to reduce his child support obligation.  By the time of trial, Kevin had also lost his job with Phoenix.  The trial court imputed income to him of at $150,000.00 but failed to make any finding that he had voluntarily suppressed his income in bad faith or had indulged in excessive spending in disregard of his obligations.  Kevin appealed and won.  The Court of Appeals in Lasecki v. Lasecki, ___ N.C. App. ___, 186 S.E.2d 286 (2016) vacated the decision of the trial court and remanded the case for rehearing.

By the hearing on remand in May 2016, Kevin was employed with Frontline making $135,000 annually.  However, within 12 days, Kevin was again unemployed and working as an Uber driver.  At the rehearing, the trial court kept child support at $2,900 per month for prior periods but ordered specific performance of a lower amount ($1,688) effective 1 May 2016.  It also entered a money judgment against Kevin for the arrears under the agreement.

The Court of Appeals found that the trial court cannot modify a separation agreement that had not been incorporated into a court order because they are contractual duties not affected by an order of the court.  However, it can order specific performance of a contract where no adequate remedy exists at law and can order specific performance of the child support at a lower amount.

This case does not set out any new law but makes three things clear: (1) the trial court can’t impute income absent a showing of bad faith; (2) a separation agreement not incorporated into a court order may be enforced under specific performance; and (3) showing up in court or shortly thereafter with no job smells bad……