Court of Appeals of North Carolina Case Review: Crenshaw v. Crenshaw (COA23-799)
Filed October 1, 2024
By: A Legal Eagle With a Sense of Humor (and a Law Degree) – aka Granger Benson, Family Law Attorney and Litigator
In what might be described as “the car wash that never ends,” this Crenshaw v. Crenshaw case, straight from Mecklenburg County’s domestic battleground, brings more legal suds than a soap opera. The Court of Appeals recently ruled on a protective order, child support modification, and—because it’s North Carolina—attorney fees that made both parties wish they’d never heard of car washes or courtrooms.
Backdrop: Car Wash Drama—Minus the Soap
The Crenshaw family might own parts of a car wash empire, but this case is about as squeaky-clean as a toddler (or your puppy if you are DINK) playing in a mud puddle. Alexander F. Crenshaw (“Father”) and Kelly H. Crenshaw (“Mother”) have been duking it out in court since their 2011 separation, and they’re back in the appellate ring to settle (again) their child support and income squabbles.
But there’s a twist: The plaintiff’s subpoena attempts to delve into family business tax returns were promptly hit with a protective order, protecting Mother’s family businesses (Autobell Car Wash, Inc., Howco, Inc., and CAH Holdings, LLC). Even more amusing, Father’s appeals concerning those subpoenas never reached the soap buckets he aimed for—because he forgot to serve the right people. Classic rookie move.
Child Support Tug-of-War
Father’s big claim to fame in this case? He wanted to lower his child support payments. His reasoning? Two of the couple’s three kids had reached 18 and graduated. But here’s where it gets juicy: Father’s income hadn’t exactly shrunk, while Mother’s bank account saw serious help from her family and businesses. It was reasonable for him to think that the child support SHOULD lower, I agree, but with all the factors, a savvy attorney could have told him it was a no go from the start. You see, the child support guidelines modify upwards every 4 years.
Father also wasn’t shy about dragging Mother’s family businesses into this mess, arguing that the car wash empress was concealing more income than the coins stuck in a vacuum cleaner. Alas, the trial court wasn’t buying it. A whopping $869,000 in annual income for 2019 was up for debate, but apparently, much of that had evaporated like a drop of water on a hot summer day, due to pandemic-related slowdowns in car washing demand.
Changes in Child Support Law: The Dirt
The law in this case, a deep dive into North Carolina’s child support statutes, shows us that even when kids grow up, parents can’t just wash their hands of financial obligations. In this case, the ruling didn’t let Father reduce his payments as much as he wanted, even after his older kids turned 18. The reasoning? Child support must account for the youngest child’s needs, which hadn’t changed that much—other than possibly requiring a new MacBook and some post-pandemic luxuries.
One highlight was the decision to deviate from child support guidelines based on lifestyle and significant contributions from Mother’s family. The trial court calculated that Father owed $2,230 per month in child support—an increase from the prior $1,741. Not exactly the discount Father was hoping for. And thanks to “collateral estoppel” (a fancy legal way of saying, “We’ve been over this before!”), Father couldn’t make Mother cough up any more financial info from the family businesses. The court said to Father, no you should have asked for that information from Mother.
Attorney Fees: Fighting the Legal Fight
In what might be considered a courtroom comedy routine, both sides took turns waving attorney fee flags. Father’s bid to dodge them entirely? Denied. Mother’s plea for a big payday? Also, somewhat denied. The court landed at $15,000—far less than the $38,000 Mother requested, but more than the zero Father wanted to pay. And let’s not forget he had to pay his own attorney fees too.
The lesson here? Sometimes, fighting in court gets expensive, especially when the judge decides that one side’s relentless motions to reduce child support were… a little frivolous. The court decided that Father was on the hook for a bit of Mother’s lawyer bills because, well, his courtroom gambits looked more like a stalling tactic than a good-faith legal argument. But did you hear the other side – it was father’s fault they were in court and then in appeals and Mother still had to pay most of her way too. Was the extra $23,000 mom paid in attorney fees worth the extra $500+/- each month – ummm…No! Not in this legal gambler’s opinion.
Conclusion: Courtroom Soap Opera Continues
In the end, the Court of Appeals made it clear: jurisdictional missteps and frivolous motions won’t fly. Father’s attempt to sidestep child support increases was denied, while his failed appeal on the protective order was dismissed faster than you can say “res judicata.”
So, if you ever find yourself battling over car wash riches and child support payments, remember this: North Carolina courts are no place to cut corners—or skip serving important documents.
