Preview:

CAROL S. WALL, Plaintiff, v. CARROLL C. WALL, III, Defendant No. COA99-732 (Filed 17 October 2000) 1. Divorce--equitable distribution--marital home--value

There was no prejudicial error in an equitable distribution proceeding in the trial court's failure to set out its calculations regarding the net value of the marital dwelling where the net value could be made certain from the facts found by the court. 2. Divorce--equitable distribution--marital home--order to sell

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in an equitable distribution proceeding by ordering that the marital home be sold and the proceeds divided between the parties where the court classified and valued the residence before selling it. 3. Divorce--equitable distribution--pre-1997 action--value of profit-sharing plan--stipulation

The trial court did not err in an equitable distribution action in finding the value of a profit-sharing plan as of the date of separation, but erred by dividing the post-separation increases between the parties. Defendant is bound by a stipulation regarding the value of the plan, and amendments adding the concept of divisible property to the Equitable Distribution Act are not applicable because this claim was asserted before 1 October 1997. 4. Divorce--equitable distribution--evidence not considered-defendant's health

The trial court in an equitable distribution proceeding should have made findings to indicate that it had considered defendant's testimony about his health situation, even if the court rejected the testimony or gave it little weight. Once evidence as to the parties' health or other matters is presented, the trial court must consider the evidence and make sufficient findings. 5. Divorce--equitable distribution--tax consequences--not considered

No error was found in an equitable distribution action from the trial court's failure to consider the tax consequences of its equitable distribution order where defendant did not demonstrate that evidence of tax consequences was brought to the court's attention before the close of evidence. 6. Divorce--equitable distribution--pre-1997--debts paid after

separation The trial court did not abuse its discretion in a pre-1997 equitable distribution action in its treatment of debts paid by defendant after separation. Prior to the 1997 amendments, a trial court had a number of options in dealing with payments on a debt after the date of separation; here, the court chose to treat the debt payments as a distributional factor but gave little weight to that factor. 7. Divorce--equitable distribution--delay between close of evidence and entry of order--19 months

New evidence and a new equitable distribution order were required where there was a delay of 19 months from the date of the trial to the entry of judgment. While there is inevitably some passage of time between the close of the evidence in an equitable distribution case and the entry of judgment, particularly in a lengthy, complicated matter, there was more than a de minimis delay in this case. Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 26 June 1998 by Judge William N. Neely in Randolph County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 14 August 2000. Michelle D. Reingold for defendant appellant. No brief filed for plaintiff. HORTON, Judge. Carol S. Wall (plaintiff) and Carroll C. Wall, III

(defendant), were married on 19 December 1971.

They separated on

5 May 1988 and were divorced by judgment entered 31 October 1994. Plaintiff's claim for equitable distribution was heard during September, October, and November 1996. The trial court took the

matter under advisement and entered a written order on 26 June 1998, purporting to be "nunc pro tunc" 6 January 1998. The trial

court concluded that an equal division would effect an equitable distribution of the marital property and debt, and defendant appealed.

Defendant contends that (I) the trial court erred in failing to properly value and distribute the marital home; (II) the trial court erred in failing to find a date-of-separation net value for the husband's profit-sharing plan, and also erred in dividing the post-separation appreciation of the plan assets. Defendant further contends (III) that the trial court erred in failing to consider his health condition as a distributional factor, (IV) failed to consider the tax consequences of the division to the parties, and (V) did not give him credit for payments on marital debt. Finally,

(VI) defendant argues that the 19-month delay in entry of the equitable distribution order deprived him of due process. I. The Marital Residence [1] In North Carolina equitable distribution actions, trial judges are required "to first determine what constitutes marital property, to then determine the net market value of that property, and finally, to distribute it based on the equitable goals of the statute and the specific statutory factors." N.C. App. 12, 16, 327 S.E.2d 283, 287 (1985). Little v. Little, 74 The trial court is

permitted to distribute only marital property in an equitable distribution proceeding. N.C. Gen. Stat.

Download 99-732-7.pdf

South Carolina Law