JESSICA SHEENA v. BRENT SHEENA (2026)

I. Background

On 3 October 2022, Jessica Sheena (plaintiff) filed a complaint against her husband, Brent Sheena (defendant), asserting inter alia claims for child support, postseparation support, alimony, and equitable distribution. On 31 March 2025, a hearing was held regarding plaintiff's claims for temporary child support and postseparation support. On 28 May 2025, the trial court entered a postseparation support, temporary child support, and attorney fees order (Order). The Order awarded plaintiff $110,000 in attorney fees. Defendant noticed his appeal on 27 June 2025.

II. Jurisdiction

“A judgment is either interlocutory or the final determination of the rights of the parties.” N.C.G.S. § 1A-1. Rule 54(a). Because the Order does not “dispose[ ] of the cause as to all the parties, leaving nothing to be judicially determined between them in the trial court,” Veazey v. Durham, 231 N.C. 357, 361–62 (1950), defendant's appeal is interlocutory.

We have jurisdiction to hear appeals from any interlocutory order or judgment of a district court in a civil action that affects a substantial right. N.C.G.S. § 7A-27(b)(3)(a) (2025). When an appeal is interlocutory, the appellant's statement of the grounds for appellate review “must contain sufficient facts and argument to support appellate review on the ground that the challenged order affects a substantial right.” N.C. R. App. P., Rule 28(b)(4) (2025). The appellant bears the burden of showing a substantial right is affected. Estate of Redden v. Redden, 179 N.C. App. 113, 116 (2006); see N.C. R. App. P., Rule 28(b)(4) (2025).

“Ordinarily, an appeal from an interlocutory order will be dismissed as fragmentary and premature unless the order affects some substantial right and will work injury to appellant if not corrected before appeal from final judgment.” Redden, 179 N.C. App. at 116 (quoting Wachovia Realty Inv. v. Housing, Inc., 292 N.C. 93, 100 (1997)).

“No hard and fast rules exist for determining which appeals affect a substantial right.” Porters Neck Ltd., LLC v. Porters Neck Country Club, Inc., 276 N.C. App. 95, 99 (2021) (quoting Estrada v. Jaques, 70 N.C. App. 627, 640 (1984)). Instead, determining whether a substantial right is affected depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Id. (quoting Estrada, 70 N.C. App. at 642). “[T]he fact that an order requires the ‘immediate payment of a significant amount of money’ does not, without more, give this Court jurisdiction to consider an interlocutory appeal.” Arrington v. Arrington, 298 N.C. App. 622, 626 (2025).

Here, defendant argues that the Order affects a substantial right because the awarded attorney fees are “a significant amount of money” and disposed of the underlying issues supporting the award. However, because an order requiring “ ‘immediate payment of a significant amount of money’ does not, without more, give this Court jurisdiction to consider an interlocutory appeal,” Arrington, 298 N.C. App. at 626, defendant has not met his burden in showing that this Court has jurisdiction.

III. Conclusion

Because defendant has not shown that his interlocutory appeal affects a substantial right, it is dismissed.

DISMISSED.

Report per Rule 30(e).

FREEMAN, Judge.

Judges WOOD and STADING concur.