Breaking Down a Messy Divorce—With a Side of Sanctions
By: Durham Attorney Marcus Tingling – Basically Bodacious in the Courtrooms of Bull City
In the wild world of divorce law, you think you’ve seen it all—until someone writes a bad check to their accountant, accuses them of an “illicit relationship” (oh my), and then takes $4,000 meant for payroll to cover personal expenses. Buckle up, because the case of Christine White v. David White reads like a courtroom soap opera, where marital misconduct meets courtroom drama.
The Backstory: Business, Marriage, and Mayhem
Christine White and David White tied the knot in 2008 and officially called it quits in 2020. No kids to fight over here, but the duo had bigger problems: they jointly owned not one, not two, but three businesses—339 Circle, Beads, Inc., and Union Market.
Christine was the brains behind Beads, while David primarily ran Union Market (when he wasn’t busy causing all sorts of chaos). At the heart of the battle? Control of these businesses and a marital home that had its own mortgage mess. It didn’t take long for things to spiral into accusations, late mortgage payments, business sabotage, and a courtroom showdown over who should get what. Spoiler alert: it was messy with Husband stirring the pot.
Bad Checks and Blame Games
Let’s dive into what caught everyone’s attention in this case—David’s attempts to control the narrative (and the businesses) through some eyebrow-raising antics. Christine claimed David and his father harassed their accountant, David Wurst, to the point where the poor guy actually quit. If you’re picturing late-night confrontations and bad checks being handed out like candy, you’re right on the money. In fact, David’s harassment went so far as filing a complaint with the CPA licensing board and, for good measure, accusing Christine and the accountant of having an “illicit relationship.” Can we say drama?
David didn’t stop there. He disrupted the day-to-day operations of Beads (the business Christine managed), hurling legal threats and making demands that would make anyone’s head spin. At one point, he even grabbed $4,000 from the bank intended for employee paychecks—because who needs payroll or happy employees when you’re trying to win a divorce battle, right?
A Judge With Zero Tolerance for Games
All is right in the world though because the trial judge was not having any of David’s shenanigans. With a laundry list of delays, obstructive tactics, and general bad behavior, the court wasn’t about to give him a pass. And when it came time to divvy up the marital estate, the judge made it clear that David’s antics had consequences.
Christine, on the other hand, wasn’t just sitting idly by. She had to liquidate her investments, raid retirement accounts, and even sell personal items to fund the divorce battle—while David got to hold onto his savings. If you’re feeling a little indignant on her behalf, don’t worry, so did the court.
Unequal Distribution: A Case of “You Get What You Deserve”
In divorce, courts typically aim for a 50-50 split of the marital assets. But in this case, David’s behavior tipped the scales. The court found that Christine had been forced to sell off assets to pay for legal fees while David did everything he could to drag out the process. His economic misbehavior and interference in the businesses justified an unequal distribution, with Christine walking away with 56% of the marital estate. The numbers? Christine got a little over $1.2 million, while David ended up with about $1 million. Fair? The judge certainly thought so. Maybe the court should have even given her more?
And let’s not forget the $200,000 lump sum David had to pay Christine. Why that amount? Well, it wasn’t arbitrary. The court calculated that after considering all the factors, David could handle the payment, especially after refinancing the mortgage on the former marital home, which he got to keep (despite paying the mortgage late, incurring fees, and just generally making a mess of things).
Sanctions: The Legal Slap on the Wrist
As if losing more than half of the marital estate wasn’t enough, David also got hit with a whopping $120,000 in attorney’s fees. Why? For being an obstructionist, plain and simple. The court found his delays and antics so egregious that they justified slapping him with sanctions—money that went straight to Christine’s legal team for dealing with David’s nonsense.
In case you’re wondering, yes, David did try to argue that this was unfair. He claimed he didn’t have enough notice for the sanctions hearing, and that the amount was unreasonable. The court, however, found that he had plenty of notice and that Christine’s attorney’s fees were entirely reasonable given the complexity of the case and the mess David created.
Final Thoughts: Divorce, Drama, and Dollars
The White v. White case is a classic tale of how bad behavior during divorce proceedings can lead to significant consequences. What started as a straightforward divorce escalated into a courtroom battle over business control, money, and sheer stubbornness. The judge didn’t hold back, and David’s refusal to cooperate cost him dearly—both financially and in the division of marital assets.
In the end, it’s a reminder that in the world of divorce law, playing games rarely pays off. So if you ever find yourself in the middle of a separation, remember this: don’t write bad checks, don’t harass your accountant, and for heaven’s sake, don’t take $4,000 meant for payroll. Your ex might end up with the bigger slice of the pie—and you might find yourself paying $120,000 in attorney’s fees to boot.
