|
|
|
Valuation of Vehicle Upon Divorce
© 2005 National Legal Research Group, Inc.
NORTH CAROLINA: Urciolo v. Urciolo, ___ N.C. App. ___, 601 S.E.2d 905 (2004).
The trial court did not err by valuing a motorcycle using the price paid at the time of purchase, a few months before separation, and rejecting a standardized valuation as of the date of separation. The purchase price took into account customized additions which the standardized valuation did not consider. The trial court erred by making a monetary award without taking into account a statutory presumption favoring division in kind.
The husband appealed that portion of a divorce decree regrading equitable distribution of marital property because of alleged error in the valuation of one item of personal property and the award to the wife of a distributive award in order to compensate the wife for an in-kind distribution of other property. The appellate court affirmed the order as modified.
As to the valuation question, the court placed a value on a motorcycle purchased by the parties of at least $16,450. The motorcycle was purchased a few months prior to separation. The trial court valued it at the purchase price despite a NADA valuation as of the date of separation of $13,310 because of subsequent customized alterations and additions made by the parties. After considering the outstanding balance due on the motorcycle, the court concluded that it had a net equity value of $1,952. The husband complained that the lower court had failed to make a sufficiently specific finding of value. The appellate court disagreed. It held that findings of fact as to value are conclusive if there is evidence to support them despite the existence of evidence supporting a different valuation. The appellate court's role is not to second-guess values of marital and separate property, and the trial court is not required to make exhaustive findings regarding evidence presented. Here, the NADA value of the motorcycle was submitted to the court below without objection by either party. Its findings that the motorcycle had a value of "at least $16,450" and that it had a net equity value of $1,952 were sufficient to support the fair market value arrived at by the trial court and would not be disturbed on appeal.
The husband also argued that the lower court had committed error in ordering that he make a $25,000 distributive award to the wife, asserting that there was insufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that an in-kind distribution of marital assets is equitable and that there were insufficient findings as to whether he possessed the liquid assets to satisfy the award. The appellate court agreed.
The amendment to N.C. Gen. Stat. 50-20(e) in 1997 was to "create a rebuttable presumption that an in-kind distribution of property is equitable." In so doing, the legislature discarded the impracticality standard, which had previously provided that the trial court could properly order a distributive award instead of an in-kind distribution when the latter was found to be impracticable. In the present case, the trial court's order is devoid of any findings of fact or conclusions of law pertaining to this presumption. The trial court did not follow the statutory presumption and made a distributive award. When there is a presumption in the law, the finder of fact is bound by that presumption unless it makes findings that the presumption has been rebutted. Therefore, in equitable distribution cases, if the trial court determines that the presumption of an in-kind distribution has been rebutted, it must make findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of that determination.
Further, N.C. Gen. Stat. 50-20(c) enumerates distributional factors to be considered. One of those factors is the liquid or nonliquid character of all marital property and divisible property. The trial court was required to make findings as to whether the husband had sufficient liquid assets from which he could make the distributive award. Here, the trial court noted only that the husband had about $5,200 in his attorney's trust account. The trial judge made no findings as to whether the husband had sufficient other liquid assets to pay the distributive award. While he may in fact have had such assets, the husband's evidence was sufficient to raise the question of where he would obtain the funds necessary to fulfill his obligation.
The appellate court, therefore, remanded the matter to make additional findings on whether the presumption of an in-kind distribution was rebutted and whether the husband had sufficient liquid assets to pay the distributive award.
Go to: Valuation of Assets Category
Go to: Cases of Interest by Category
Go to: Previous Page
| Featured Services | |
|
| The Research Center: (Divorce Cases of Interest) | Research Home | ||||
Find Case Law, Case Analysis, and Divorce Information...
| |||||
Copyright© 1996-2009. All rights reserved by Divorce Source, Inc.
Comments & Suggestions? or Recommend This Page to a Friend!