< Home Page [About Us] Why? Access to some research documents (those we license from independent legal research companies) are restricted to subscribers. To gain access to ALL of these documents, you must subscribe. If you are already a subscriber, you may sign in before you begin your research. (Why Subscribe?)

Cases of Interest: North Carolina
© National Legal Research Group, Inc.

Agreements (full category)

NORTH CAROLINA: Goodwin v. Webb, ___ N.C. App. ___, 568 S.E.2d 311 (2002).
The parties signed a separation agreement which waived the wife's right to dissent from the husband's will in the event of his death. Shortly thereafter, the husband died. The wife then filed an action to set the agreement aside.
Read More About This Case

Alimony (full category)

NORTH CAROLINA: Vadala v. Vadala, No. COA00-205 (N.C. Ct. App. Aug. 7, 2001).
The trial court felt it was unable to consider the parties' pattern of saving for their retirement in determining alimony.
Read More About This Case

Appreciation of Assets (full category)

NORTH CAROLINA: Smith v. Smith, ___ N.C. ___, 444 S.E.2d 420 (1994).
The trial court must make ultimate findings of fact as to whether postseparation appreciation of the marital estate is active or passive.
Read More About This Case

NORTH CAROLINA: Conway v. Conway, ___ N.C. App. ___, 508 S.E.2d 812 (1998).
Although the husband's medical license was not marital property, the trial court was justified under the circumstances in making an award to the wife in excess of the total net value of the marital estate.
Read More About This Case

Attorney's Fees (full category)

NORTH CAROLINA: Crutchfield v. Crutchfield, ___ N.C. App. ___, 511 S.E.2d 31 (1999).
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by awarding attorney's fees in the amount of $1,500 to the husband as a sanction for the wife's willful delay.
Read More About This Case

Children (full category)

NORTH CAROLINA: Crisp v. Crisp, ___ N.C. App. ___, 486 S.E.2d 485 (1997).
Medical expenses incurred by the husband for his daughter from a previous marriage were his separate debts, not marital debts.
Read More About This Case

Child Support (full category)

NORTH CAROLINA: Hendricks v. Sanks, No. COA00-91 (N.C. Ct. App. May 15, 2001).
This case presented two child support issues. The first issue is whether child support is required from the noncustodial parent where the child is over eighteen years old and regularly attends high school but, because of suffering from Downs syndrome, is not making progress toward a traditional diploma.
Read More About This Case

Classification of Assets (full category)

NORTH CAROLINA: King v. King, ___ N.C. App. ___, 434 S.E.2d 669 (1993).
Husband's stock in family corporation was marital property where it was acquired by outright purchase during the marriage by borrowing money from the husband's mother; subsequent gifts from the husband's parents which reduced that debt did not create a separate property interest in the stock.
Read More About This Case

NORTH CAROLINA: Adams v. Adams, ___ N.C. App. ___, 443 S.E.2d 780 (1994).
Marital funds expended to pay off the husband's separate debt cannot be classified as marital property.
Read More About This Case

NORTH CAROLINA: Jones v. Jones, ___ N.C. App. ___, 466 S.E.2d 342 (1996).
A spouse's eligibility for a VA loan does not constitute distributable property, and the use of a spouse's VA loan eligibility to purchase a marital home does not require an unequal division in that spouse's favor.
Read More About This Case

NORTH CAROLINA: Holterman v. Holterman, ___ N.C. App. ___, 488 S.E.2d 265 (1997).
The wife failed to carry her burden of proof to show that the parties' investments were traceable to her separate property; moreover, the evidence showed that the wife intended her inherited assets to be a gift to the marital estate.
Read More About This Case

NORTH CAROLINA: Becker v. Becker, ___ N.C. ___, 489 S.E.2d 909 (1997).
The husband did not meet his burden of showing that a debt for his dental work was for the joint benefit of the parties so as to justify classifying it as a marital debt.
Read More About This Case

NORTH CAROLINA: Crisp v. Crisp, ___ N.C. App. ___, 486 S.E.2d 485 (1997).
A tract of land deeded to both parties during the marriage by the husband's parents was properly classified as marital property in view of evidence that the parents intended to make a gift to the marital estate.
Read More About This Case

NORTH CAROLINA: Crisp v. Crisp, ___ N.C. App. ___, 486 S.E.2d 485 (1997).
Medical expenses incurred by the husband for his daughter from a previous marriage were his separate debts, not marital debts.
Read More About This Case

Closely Held Corpoarations (full category)

NORTH CAROLINA: Offerman v. Offerman, ___ N.C. App. ___, 527 S.E.2d 684 (2000).
The equitable distribution action regarding the couple's closely held corporation arose before the 1997 amendments to the Equitable Distribution Act, and, thus, the court had to identify the property of the couple, determine the value of the property on the date of the separation, and distribute the property.
Read More About This Case

NORTH CAROLINA: King v. King, ___ N.C. App. ___, 434 S.E.2d 669 (1993).
Husband's stock in family corporation was marital property where it was acquired by outright purchase during the marriage by borrowing money from the husband's mother; subsequent gifts from the husband's parents which reduced that debt did not create a separate property interest in the stock.
Read More About This Case

Debts (full category)

NORTH CAROLINA: Adams v. Adams, ___ N.C. App. ___, 443 S.E.2d 780 (1994).
Marital funds expended to pay off the husband's separate debt cannot be classified as marital property.
Read More About This Case

NORTH CAROLINA: Mrozek v. Mrozek, ___ N.C. App. ___, 496 S.E.2d 836 (1998).
A marital debt owed by the husband to his parents was enforceable even though the statute of limitations had run on the debt.
Read More About This Case

NORTH CAROLINA: Becker v. Becker, ___ N.C. ___, 489 S.E.2d 909 (1997).
The husband did not meet his burden of showing that a debt for his dental work was for the joint benefit of the parties so as to justify classifying it as a marital debt.
Read More About This Case

Discovery (full category)

NORTH CAROLINA: Sharp v. Sharp, ___ N.C. App. ___, 449 S.E.2d 39 (1994).
The trial court did not err when it valued the husband's partnership interest in his law firm by adopting a valuation methodology that averaged the result of several different methodologies, where the wife had not presented evidence of an alternative methodology or valuation.
Read More About This Case

Dissipation of Assets (full category)

NORTH CAROLINA: Walter v. Walter, ___ N.C. App. ___, 561 S.E.2d 571 (2002).
Where the parties agreed that certain property taken by the wife from the marital home after the date of separation would be treated as part of her share of the marital estate, any economic injury inflicted by the wife's conduct was fully repaired, and the trial court erred by using the wife's conduct as the basis for awarding the husband 54.5% of the marital estate.
Read More About This Case

NORTH CAROLINA: Wornom v. Wornom, ___ N.C. App. ___, 485 S.E.2d 856 (1997).
The wife's secret withdrawal of funds from the parties' business before the parties' separation constituted dissipation of assets.
Read More About This Case

Division of Property (full category)

NORTH CAROLINA: Hay v. Hay, No. COA01-187 (N.C. Ct. App. Feb. 19, 2002).
The couple in this case was married in August 1972. They separated in July 1997 and were divorced in September 1998. The wife filed a complaint seeking alimony, temporary and permanent postseparation support, attorney's fees, writ of possession, equitable distribution, child custody, and child support in January 1998.
Read More About This Case

NORTH CAROLINA: Davis v. Sineath, ___ N.C. App. ___, 498 S.E.2d 629 (1998).
A residence titled as a tenancy by the entirety was marital property, but the use of the husband's separate funds to purchase and renovate the property justified awarding it to him, especially considering the very short duration of the parties' marriage.
Read More About This Case

NORTH CAROLINA: Weatherford v. Keenan, ___ N.C. App. ___, 493 S.E.2d 812 (1997).
The trial court did not err in imposing a constructive trust on improvements to the marital home, which the husband inherited from his parents after the parties' separation and before the divorce.
Read More About This Case

NORTH CAROLINA: Upchurch v. Upchurch, ___ N.C. App. ___, 495 S.E.2d 738 (1998).
Clear and convincing evidence supported the trial court's finding that assets held by the parties' son should be subjected to a constructive trust for the benefit of the marital estate.
Read More About This Case

Factors in Award (full category)

NORTH CAROLINA: Smith v. Smith, ___ N.C. ___, 444 S.E.2d 420 (1994).
The trial court must make ultimate findings of fact as to whether postseparation appreciation of the marital estate is active or passive.
Read More About This Case

NORTH CAROLINA: Minter v. Minter, 111 N.C. App. 321, 432 S.E.2d 720 (1993).
Although husband failed to show that his separate property was the source of currently owned assets, the trial court was obligated to consider husband's separate property contributions as a distributional factor.
Read More About This Case

Gifts (full category)

NORTH CAROLINA: Burnett v. Burnett, ___ N.C. App. ___, 471 S.E.2d 649 (1996).
A lot transferred to the husband by his mother was the husband's separate property, since the wife failed to rebut the presumption of gift arising from the transfer.
Read More About This Case

NORTH CAROLINA: Davis v. Sineath, ___ N.C. App. ___, 498 S.E.2d 629 (1998).
A residence titled as a tenancy by the entirety was marital property, but the use of the husband's separate funds to purchase and renovate the property justified awarding it to him, especially considering the very short duration of the parties' marriage.
Read More About This Case

Goodwill (full category)

NORTH CAROLINA: Carlson v. Carlson, ___ N.C. App. ___, 487 S.E.2d 784 (1997).
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by utilizing national salary statistics to calculate the goodwill component of the husband's medical practice.
Read More About This Case

NORTH CAROLINA: Sharp v. Sharp, ___ N.C. App. ___, 449 S.E.2d 39 (1994).
The trial court did not err when it valued the husband's partnership interest in his law firm by adopting a valuation methodology that averaged the result of several different methodologies, where the wife had not presented evidence of an alternative methodology or valuation.
Read More About This Case

Jurisdiction (full category)

NORTH CAROLINA: Strother v. Strother, ___ N.C. App. ___, 462 S.E.2d 542 (1995).
An out-of-state individual who provided financial, investment, and tax advice to the husband and wife was subject to personal jurisdiction in North Carolina, as was another individual who purported to be a director, officer, and controlling shareholder of a corporation which conducted all its business in North Carolina and allegedly constituted a marital asset.
Read More About This Case

NORTH CAROLINA: Shamley v. Shamley, ___ N.C. App. ___, 455 S.E.2d 435 (1994).
The wife, a nonresident, had not established minimum contacts with North Carolina so as to permit the exercise of personal jurisdiction over her in the husband's equitable distribution action in North Carolina.
Read More About This Case

Marital Home (full category)

NORTH CAROLINA: Hay v. Hay, No. COA01-187 (N.C. Ct. App. Feb. 19, 2002).
The husband appealed an equitable distribution judgment awarding an unequal division of the marital estate in his favor. Questions that arose included whether the husband was entitled to a dollar-for-dollar credit of the total sum of monthly mortgage payments that he paid postseparation and whether payments and depreciation in the mortgage balance should have been treated as divisible property.
Read More About This Case

Military Benefits (full category)

NORTH CAROLINA: White v. White, ___ N.C. App. ___, 568 S.E.2d 283 (2002).
When a spouse elects to take veterans' disability benefits, that spouse's military retirement benefits are reduced, resulting in a decreased monthly award to the other spouse. Federal law prevents the division of disability benefits in this situation, but it does not prevent a state court from modifying its division of retirement benefits.
Read More About This Case

NORTH CAROLINA: Anderson v. Anderson, No. COA00-1008 (N.C. Ct. App. Aug. 7, 2001).
The wife appealed an order for summary judgment granted in favor of the husband on the wife's claim for an equitable distribution of the husband's military retirement pension.
Read More About This Case

Pensions (full category)

NORTH CAROLINA: Hamby v. Hamby, No. COA00-151 (N.C. Ct. App. June 5, 2001).
The husband contended that his insurance agency and the deferred compensation plans therefrom were improperly valued and distributed.
Read More About This Case

NORTH CAROLINA: Anderson v. Anderson, No. COA00-1008 (N.C. Ct. App. Aug. 7, 2001).
The wife appealed an order for summary judgment granted in favor of the husband on the wife's claim for an equitable distribution of the husband's military retirement pension.
Read More About This Case

Premarital Property (full category)

NORTH CAROLINA: Minter v. Minter, 111 N.C. App. 321, 432 S.E.2d 720 (1993).
Although husband failed to show that his separate property was the source of currently owned assets, the trial court was obligated to consider husband's separate property contributions as a distributional factor.
Read More About This Case

Professional Licenses and Degrees (full category)

NORTH CAROLINA: Conway v. Conway, ___ N.C. App. ___, 508 S.E.2d 812 (1998).
Although the husband's medical license was not marital property, the trial court was justified under the circumstances in making an award to the wife in excess of the total net value of the marital estate.
Read More About This Case

Professional Practices (full category)

NORTH CAROLINA: Carlson v. Carlson, ___ N.C. App. ___, 487 S.E.2d 784 (1997).
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by utilizing national salary statistics to calculate the goodwill component of the husband's medical practice.
Read More About This Case

NORTH CAROLINA: Sharp v. Sharp, ___ N.C. App. ___, 449 S.E.2d 39 (1994).
The trial court did not err when it valued the husband's partnership interest in his law firm by adopting a valuation methodology that averaged the result of several different methodologies, where the wife had not presented evidence of an alternative methodology or valuation.
Read More About This Case

Qualifed Domestic Relation Order (full category)

NORTH CAROLINA: Patterson v. Patterson, ___ N.C. App. ___, 529 S.E.2d 484 (2000).
The wife filed an injunction to require the husband's estate to consent to a QDRO distributing the deceased husband's state retirement benefits.
Read More About This Case

Separation (full category)

NORTH CAROLINA: Smith v. Smith, ___ N.C. ___, 444 S.E.2d 420 (1994).
The trial court must make ultimate findings of fact as to whether postseparation appreciation of the marital estate is active or passive.
Read More About This Case

Stepparenting (full category)

NORTH CAROLINA: Seyboth v. Seyboth, No. COA00-1160 (N.C. Ct. App. Nov. 6, 2001).
The trial court awarded the child's stepfather visitation rights over the objection of the mother. The appellate court reversed, holding that although the mother had encouraged the child and stepfather to bond and establish a parent-child relationship.
Read More About This Case

Tax Consequences (full category)

NORTH CAROLINA: Holterman v. Holterman, ___ N.C. App. ___, 488 S.E.2d 265 (1997).
The wife failed to carry her burden of proof to show that the parties' investments were traceable to her separate property; moreover, the evidence showed that the wife intended her inherited assets to be a gift to the marital estate.
Read More About This Case

NORTH CAROLINA: Harvey v. Harvey, 112 N.C. App. 788, 437 S.E.2d 397 (1993).
Husband's partnership interest should not have been valued on an after-tax basis, where he had not withdrawn from the partnership and the distribution would not require him to do so.
Read More About This Case

Third Parties (full category)

NORTH CAROLINA: Strother v. Strother, ___ N.C. App. ___, 462 S.E.2d 542 (1995).
An out-of-state individual who provided financial, investment, and tax advice to the husband and wife was subject to personal jurisdiction in North Carolina, as was another individual who purported to be a director, officer, and controlling shareholder of a corporation which conducted all its business in North Carolina and allegedly constituted a marital asset.
Read More About This Case

NORTH CAROLINA: Coston v. Coston, 109 N.C. App. 306, 426 S.E.2d 460 (1993).
Trial court's order that husband obtain a release from his parents of their right of first refusal on his home was proper, even though husband's parents were not parties to the proceedings.
Read More About This Case

NORTH CAROLINA: Weatherford v. Keenan, ___ N.C. App. ___, 493 S.E.2d 812 (1997).
The trial court did not err in imposing a constructive trust on improvements to the marital home, which the husband inherited from his parents after the parties' separation and before the divorce.
Read More About This Case

NORTH CAROLINA: Upchurch v. Upchurch, ___ N.C. App. ___, 495 S.E.2d 738 (1998).
Clear and convincing evidence supported the trial court's finding that assets held by the parties' son should be subjected to a constructive trust for the benefit of the marital estate.
Read More About This Case

NORTH CAROLINA: Wornom v. Wornom, ___ N.C. App. ___, 485 S.E.2d 856 (1997).
The wife's secret withdrawal of funds from the parties' business before the parties' separation constituted dissipation of assets.
Read More About This Case

NORTH CAROLINA: Crisp v. Crisp, ___ N.C. App. ___, 486 S.E.2d 485 (1997).
A tract of land deeded to both parties during the marriage by the husband's parents was properly classified as marital property in view of evidence that the parents intended to make a gift to the marital estate.
Read More About This Case

Transmutation of Property (full category)

NORTH CAROLINA: Davis v. Sineath, ___ N.C. App. ___, 498 S.E.2d 629 (1998).
A residence titled as a tenancy by the entirety was marital property, but the use of the husband's separate funds to purchase and renovate the property justified awarding it to him, especially considering the very short duration of the parties' marriage.
Read More About This Case

Trusts (full category)

NORTH CAROLINA: Weatherford v. Keenan, ___ N.C. App. ___, 493 S.E.2d 812 (1997).
The trial court did not err in imposing a constructive trust on improvements to the marital home, which the husband inherited from his parents after the parties' separation and before the divorce.
Read More About This Case

NORTH CAROLINA: Upchurch v. Upchurch, ___ N.C. App. ___, 495 S.E.2d 738 (1998).
Clear and convincing evidence supported the trial court's finding that assets held by the parties' son should be subjected to a constructive trust for the benefit of the marital estate.
Read More About This Case

NORTH DAKOTA: van Oosting v. van Oosting, 521 N.W.2d 93 (N.D. 1993).
The trial court's decision not to award the wife any portion of the husband's interest in the credit trust established by his father was clear error.
Read More About This Case

Valuation of Property (full category)

NORTH CAROLINA: Edwards v. Edwards, ___ N.C. App. ___ , 566 S.E.2d 847 (2002).
The trial court erred by valuing the marital estate as of the date of separation. The statutory concept of divisible property requires the court to also value the parties' property as of the date of distribution. The trial court did not err in awarding each party a portion of land surrounding a hunting lodge, where neither party had the resources to pay the other's interest, even if division in kind prevented either spouse from using the lodge as income-producing property.
Read More About This Case

NORTH CAROLINA: Hamby v. Hamby, No. COA00-151 (N.C. Ct. App. June 5, 2001).
In this case, the couple married on February 27, 1988, separated on August 17, 1995, and divorced on December 19, 1996. The couple had two children born within the marriage. Before the marriage, the husband had worked as an insurance agent. Shortly after the marriage, however, the husband became an independent contractor with the insurance company, opening his own office.
Read More About This Case

NORTH CAROLINA: Hambly v. Hambly, No. COA00-151 (N.C. Ct. App. June 5, 2001).
This case presented the issue of how to value an insurance agency where the insurance agent is an exclusive agent, representing only one company, and thus there is no business to sell or transfer.
Read More About This Case

NORTH CAROLINA: Offerman v. Offerman, ___ N.C. App. ___, 527 S.E.2d 684 (2000).
The equitable distribution action regarding the couple's closely held corporation arose before the 1997 amendments to the Equitable Distribution Act, and, thus, the court had to identify the property of the couple, determine the value of the property on the date of the separation, and distribute the property.
Read More About This Case

NORTH CAROLINA: Sharp v. Sharp, ___ N.C. App. ___, 449 S.E.2d 39 (1994).
The trial court did not err when it valued the husband's partnership interest in his law firm by adopting a valuation methodology that averaged the result of several different methodologies, where the wife had not presented evidence of an alternative methodology or valuation.
Read More About This Case

NORTH CAROLINA: Carlson v. Carlson, ___ N.C. App. ___, 487 S.E.2d 784 (1997).
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by utilizing national salary statistics to calculate the goodwill component of the husband's medical practice.
Read More About This Case

NORTH CAROLINA: Grasty v. Grasty, ___ N.C. App. ___, 482 S.E.2d 752 (1997).
The trial court did not err in failing to value the husband's interest in a business, given the lack of credible valuation evidence, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to appoint an expert to value the business; however, without being valued, the business could not be distributed in the parties' equitable distribution proceedings.
Read More About This Case

NORTH CAROLINA: Grasty v. Grasty, ___ N.C. App. ___, 482 S.E.2d 752 (1997).
The trial court did not err in failing to value the husband's interest in a business, given the lack of credible valuation evidence, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to appoint an expert to value the business; however, without being valued, the business could not be distributed in the parties' equitable distribution proceedings.
Read More About This Case