Can anyone please tell me the exact statute number in North Carolina law that states the following " income earned after separation is not part of marital property"? And, does a motion or court order need to be served for a party to request retirement benefits in an ED? What if it was never discussed, only brought up in closing argument, and then the judge just granted it without any prior court actions just b/c one of the parties was military?
There is no such statute. NCGS 50-20(b) defines marital, separate and divisible property. Income earned after the separation may be divisible if it was earned as a result of efforts before the separation.
A motion or court order does not need to be served for a party to request retirement benefits be divided in an equitable distribution trial.
So, what if during the ED trial the opposing party(Defendant) lied while under testimony related to “not having her own retirement fund” and her income and then it was found after in fact she had a retirement fund and more income than she disclosed but did not want the court to divide hers and she wanted her ex husbands military retirement fund? The documentation was found later to prove this fact.
Does lying under oath in an ED trial have any consequences?
Yes, perjury is a crime.
Can you guide me as to the first step that should be taken in the case of perjury?
Does a motion have to be filed or a separate claim?
Is it a statute somewhere?
The criminal code is located in Chapter 14 of the general statutes. Perjury is in Article 28 therein. http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/Statutes/StatutesTOC.pl?Chapter=0014
Thank you, so with concrete documented evidence that the defendant did in fact lie while under oath at the final ED trial therefore skewing the judgment, what is the first step that should be taken?
An appeal has already been filed with the appellate court but that does not seem to be the correct course of action.
If you want to get her charged with a crime, you need to visit the magistrate.
If your goal is to get a new order, you may want to consider a motion under Rule 60 based on misrepresentation of the party.