The Mecklenburg County District Court Judge entered a Court Order in our client’s favor, allowing her to move with her minor child from North Carolina to the State of Mississippi, against the wishes of the Father who resided in Charlotte, North Carolina. The minor child had been raised in Charlotte, North Carolina since birth, but after intense litigation, the Court found that it was in the child’s best interest to relocate with his mother, our client, to Mississippi. Knowing that relocation cases are very difficult, this was a tremendous victory for our client and her child.
After two full days of trial and nearly 1.5 years of litigation, the Mecklenburg County District Court Judge entered a Court Order in our client’s favor requiring that his son, the minor child, remain with our client in the State of North Carolina. The mother had relocated to Alabama to live with her husband and other children. The mother was seeking for the Court to enter an Order requiring that the child relocate with her to Alabama, over our client’s objections. This was an amazing outcome for our client.
The Mecklenburg County District Court Judge entered a Court Order in our client’s favor requiring that our client’s son, the minor child, be placed into his custody and re-enrolled into the Charlotte Mecklenburg School System. The mother in this case had moved somewhat frequently between the continental United States and most recently moved to the State of Maryland. The court found that although the child had lived in many locations, his most recent and most significant connections were to the Charlotte, North Carolina area, where he had created a close bond with his Father, our client.
We handled a case that involved a mother absconding with our client’s daughter for nearly 8 years. The mother had been relocating the child through Europe and Africa. After litigating through several emergency child custody motions, including emergency jurisdiction, we were able to successfully confiscate the child’s passport to prevent any other departures from the United States, prevent the Mother from taking the child out of the State of North Carolina without our client’s consent, and we ensured custodial time for our client and his daughter, who have since created a close and loving bond aside from the 8 years of nearly zero contact.
The Mecklenburg County District Court Judge entered a Court Order in our client’s favor placing her daughter, the minor child, into her sole custody, both legal and physical, to the exclusion of Father. The Court found that Father had violated his constitutionally protected rights as a Father, based on his actions and omissions towards the child and our client. Parents have a constitutionally protected right to be a parent, and for a court to grant sole custody of a child to one parent over the other, the evidence must exceed that difficult threshold of a constitutional right. On behalf of our well deserving client, we were able to successfully convince the Court that our evidence exceeded that threshold.
The Mecklenburg County District Court Judge entered a Court Order in our client’s favor at the conclusion of an Alimony and Equitable Distribution trial. That Court, after lengthy arguments and production of case law, attributed almost no debt to our client and awarded her a sizable share of the parties’ marital estate, including retirement funds from her ex-husband’s retirement accounts.
After a 2-year long, heavily litigated battle, a Mecklenburg County judge entered an order awarding equal custody to our client, a father of four. The mother in this case did everything in her power to keep the children from our client, requiring our team to present years’ worth of evidence in a concise and persuasive manner over three full days of trial. The outcome allowed our client to continue to maintain his strong relationship with his children and overcome mother’s attempts to estrange them. Jennifer and Andria were successful in arguing for a full dismissal of their opposing party’s Superior Court claims against our client, which stemmed from a very contentious divorce matter. The claims included Fraud, Conversation, False Pretenses, and Breach of Fiduciary Duty. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision and upheld Jennifer’s arguments. The successful dismissal of the opposing party’s claims protected our client from significant costs and attorney’s fees.
The partners of Marcellino & Tyson successfully litigated a shareholder dispute, on behalf of its client, a mid-sized plumbing business. As a result of this representation, the client was able to retain ownership of the company and remove certain shareholders.
Marcellino & Tyson was able to help a client obtain her long-term disability benefits. The client’s claim had been denied by the insurance company. After filing suit and having the claim remanded to the plan administrator, the insurance company reversed its position and awarded full benefits to our client. The amount of back benefits was over $140,000 and the client will begin receiving monthly disability benefits as well as group health insurance as a result of the disability.
The attorneys at Marcellino & Tyson represented a client regarding her claim for health insurance benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA.”) After two years of litigation, the trial court awarded our client the full benefits she sought under the health insurance plan, as well as attorneys’ fees. The decision is reported at L.B. v. United Behavioral Health, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129403 (W.D.N.C. 2014).
Representation of a client regarding his claim for benefits under a long-term disability plan. Specifically, the former employee alleged that he was never provided a “summary plan description” of the long-term disability plan. Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (also known as “ERISA”), plan sponsors (typically employers) are required to provide employees a summary plan description, which tells employees general information about their plan benefits. Because the employee had not received a copy of the summary plan description, he was unaware of a provision that substantially reduced the disability benefits he was to receive. Based on recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent, attorney Tyson filed suit on behalf of the employee to stop the plan and former employer from reducing the employee’s disability benefits.
Representation of a client regarding her claim for benefits under both a short-term and long-term disability plan. Because the short-term disability plan was not subject to ERISA, attorney Tyson pursued two separate lawsuits on behalf of the client—one in state court and one in federal court.
Attorney Bryan Tyson represented a client in a highly contested workers’ compensation injury. After initial denials by the workers’ compensation insurance carrier, attorney Tyson tried the case in front of a Deputy Commissioner for the North Carolina Industrial Commission, the agency responsible for resolving workers’ compensation claims. After the trial, the case was settled for a five-figure sum.
Marcellino & Tyson successfully settled a wrongful death claim against the State of North Carolina for $600,000.00. The claim arose as a result of a state employee negligently entering an intersection at a high rate of speed, thereby causing a motor vehicle collision.
Attorney Bryan Tyson litigated a claim where our client, a dental assistant, was hit head-on by a car that crossed the center line. As a result, the client’s car flipped over, with the impact of the crash shattering the client’s elbow. The claim was resolved prior to litigation for $180,000.
Marcellino & Tyson won arbitration for a client in a construction payment dispute for almost $70,000. An individual was involved in a truck accident and Attorney Campbell was able to use his extensive experience to advocate for and help his client secure a six-figure settlement.
Lis Pendens is Latin and translates to pending litigation. A notice of lis pendens is a device used to put the world on notice of a dispute involving ownership or rights to real property. However, it has limited uses. Attorney Marcellino was able to convince the Superior Court to cancel a lis pendens that was improperly used against the firm’s client. The improper use resulted in a land sale contract being terminated by the buyers, causing damages to our client, but allowing the client to move forward with a sale of the property despite claims of ownership by multiple third parties.
Request a Call Back
Book an Appointment
See what we can do for you today. We’re highly experienced attorneys.