{ "id": 8524315, "name": "WALTER POST SMITH, JR., Plaintiff v. LINDA OTTO SMITH, Defendant", "name_abbreviation": "Smith v. Smith", "decision_date": "1991-12-17", "docket_number": "No. 9128DC210", "first_page": "788", "last_page": "792", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "104 N.C. App. 788" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "373 S.E.2d 111", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 644770 ], "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ga-app/188/0653-01" ] }, { "cite": "323 N.C. 174", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2565730, 2564201, 2566281, 2561236, 2562006 ], "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/323/0174-04", "/nc/323/0174-01", "/nc/323/0174-05", "/nc/323/0174-03", "/nc/323/0174-02" ] }, { "cite": "367 S.E.2d 385", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "386" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "90 N.C. App. 72", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8522291 ], "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "74" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/90/0072-01" ] }, { "cite": "368 S.E.2d 595", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "599" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "322 N.C. 396", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2515756 ], "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/322/0396-01" ] }, { "cite": "374 S.E.2d 376", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "323 N.C. 543", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2563389 ], "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/323/0543-01" ] }, { "cite": "363 S.E.2d 95", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "88 N.C. App. 285", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8358145 ], "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/88/0285-01" ] }, { "cite": "385 S.E.2d 155", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "96 N.C. App. 253", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8521331 ], "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/96/0253-01" ] }, { "cite": "324 S.E.2d 915", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "72 N.C. App. 409", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526857 ], "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/72/0409-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 457, "char_count": 11123, "ocr_confidence": 0.779, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.12312876112824e-08, "percentile": 0.46822420921065283 }, "sha256": "e83174feb5cedd584be5bb80d9d950a81ffbd31e4b58cf05b721f3280717e132", "simhash": "1:d76df50a3dccbbf2", "word_count": 1820 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:39:04.224888+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Eagles and Walker concur." ], "parties": [ "WALTER POST SMITH, JR., Plaintiff v. LINDA OTTO SMITH, Defendant" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JOHNSON, Judge.\nPlaintiff first contends (arguments I and II) that there is no evidence to support the trial court\u2019s finding that the value of the BASF 401(k) retirement plan was $103,445.69. He contends that the testimony by Mr. Kledis, a C.P.A., established that the value of the account was $77,806 at the time of separation. We disagree.\nMr. Kledis testified that the vested value of the account was $103,445.69 at the end of March 1987 (the date of separation) and that if one assumed the application of the maximum tax rates and a total withdrawal at that time, the value was reduced to $77,806. The court found that the BASF retirement account was marital property and awarded it entirely to plaintiff. There is no evidence in the record and plaintiff does not argue that he was or would be forced to withdraw all or any part of the fund to comply with any distribution ordered by the court; thus, the fact of withdrawal and the possible tax consequences are purely speculative. See Weaver v. Weaver, 72 N.C. App. 409, 324 S.E.2d 915 (1985). Plaintiff\u2019s contention that the court failed to consider the tax consequences to either party in violation of G.S. \u00a7 50-20(c)(ll) is not supported by the record. The court specifically noted the evidence that plaintiff advanced but found that it was \u201cunable to determine any reduction in value as a result of the tax implications and has found the value of this asset to be $103,445.69.\u201d We find no error.\nPlaintiff next contends (arguments III, IV and V) that adjustments ordered by the trial court for certain payments made by both parties with regard to marital property after the date of separation, constitute an unequal division of the marital properties, contrary to the conclusion of the court that an equal division was equitable and in violation of the requirement that the court make findings of fact based on the factors listed in G.S. \u00a7 50-20(c) to support an unequal distribution.\nThe trial court found that an equal division of marital assets is equitable and awarded each party one-half of the net marital assets. The court also found that during the separation, plaintiff had made payments totaling $9,160.08 for various taxes, insurance and reduction of principal as to marital property and awarded him a credit in that amount. The court further found that defendant had made similar type payments totaling $4,488.02 and. awarded her a credit in that amount. In conclusion of law number 4 the court stated: \u201cThe total net value of the marital assets of the parties is $389,273.82. After awarding the appropriate credits, each party should be entitled to $194,636.91.\u201d (Emphasis added.)\nMoneys expended by a spouse on marital property during the period between separation and the distribution of marital property is properly credited to the paying spouse. Bowman v. Bowman, 96 N.C. App. 253, 385 S.E.2d 155 (1989); McLean v. McLean, 88 N.C. App. 285, 363 S.E.2d 95 (1987), aff\u2019d, 323 N.C. 543, 374 S.E.2d 376 (1988). In the case sub judice, however, we cannot determine from the judgment whether plaintiff properly received the full credit he is due. We note that $194,636.91 is exactly one-half of $389,273.82, the net value of the marital assets. Since plaintiffs total credit is larger than defendant\u2019s and he was awarded exactly half of the net marital assets \u201cafter awarding the appropriate credits,\u201d it appears that he did not receive the full amount he is due. We remand for clarification, and if necessary, an adjustment.\nPlaintiffs related argument is that the trial court\u2019s failure to make findings of fact to support an unequal distribution is reversible error.\nIn any order for the distribution of prop\u00e9rty made pursuant to this section, the court shall make written findings of fact that support the determination that marital property has been equitably divided. (Emphasis added.)\nG.S. \u00a7 50-20(j). In Armstrong v. Armstrong, 322 N.C. 396, 368 S.E.2d 595 (1988), our Supreme Court interpreted this statute to require written findings of fact in every case in which a distribution of marital property is ordered under the Equitable Distribution Act and expressly disapproved several of our cases in which we held that a trial court need not make findings of fact when marital property is equally divided. Id. at 403, 368 S.E.2d at 599. In argument IV, plaintiff contends that a new trial is required because the trial court failed to make findings of fact to support its conclusion that an equal distribution is equitable. We find that under the facts of this case, this failure does not require a new trial.\nThe trial court expressly concluded that an equal distribution is equitable. Plaintiff does not contend otherwise. In fact, his argument with regard to the credits is based upon his belief that an equal distribution is equitable and the trial court\u2019s treatment of the credits constituted error because it resulted in an \u201cunequal\u201d distribution. Because the issue of the credits can be resolved by a remand and because nowhere does plaintiff argue that the equal distribution is not equitable, we will not order a new trial despite the failure of the trial court to enter findings of facts as required by G.S. \u00a7 50-20(j) and Armstrong.\nPlaintiff next contends (argument VI) that the trial judge erred in failing to credit plaintiff for $2,000 which plaintiff gave to defendant from marital funds after the separation and to which fact both parties have stipulated. Defendant admits as much. This error can also be corrected on remand without the need for a new trial.\nPlaintiff next contends (argument VII) that there is no evidence to support the trial judge\u2019s valuation of the Candler and Pendleton properties. We disagree.\nThe values adopted by the trial judge for the two properties were each within the range of the plaintiffs and defendant\u2019s valuations. \u201cThis Court is not here to second-guess values of marital and separate property where there is evidence to support the trial court\u2019s figures. Counsel is cautioned that such arguments are a waste of this Court\u2019s time.\u201d Mishler v. Mishler, 90 N.C. App. 72, 74, 367 S.E.2d 385, 386, disc. review denied, 323 N.C. 174, 373 S.E.2d 111 (1988). This assignment is overruled.\nFinally, plaintiff contends (argument VIII) that the trial court erred in failing to account for stock dividends received by defendant from marital stock in her possession between the date of separation and the final distribution. There is testimony in the transcript as to the total amount of dividends received by defendant wife during this period. Since one-half of the stock was awarded to plaintiff, the dividends received from them are his separate property and should have been awarded to him in the final accounting. This can be accomplished on remand also.\nIn conclusion, we find no error which would require a new trial; however, we remand this case to the trial court to (1) clarify, and if necessary, correct the distribution of credits to each party, (2) award plaintiff proper credit for the $2,000 advanced to defendant from marital assets, and (3) award plaintiff as separate property one-half of the stock dividends received by defendant from the marital stock during the period of separation. These adjustments may be made from the existing record and the trial court is not required to receive new evidence.\nRemanded.\nJudges Eagles and Walker concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JOHNSON, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Riddle, Kelly & Cagle, P.A., by E. Glenn Kelly, for plaintiff-appellant.", "Gum & Hillier, P.A., by Howard L. Gum, Esquire, for defendant-appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "WALTER POST SMITH, JR., Plaintiff v. LINDA OTTO SMITH, Defendant\nNo. 9128DC210\n(Filed 17 December 1991)\n1. Divorce and Separation \u00a7 142 (NCI4th)\u2014 equitable distribution-retirement benefits \u2014 consideration of tax consequences\nThe trial court did not err in an equitable distribution action by finding that the value of plaintiff\u2019s retirement plan was $103,445.69 where there was testimony that the value would be reduced to $77,806 if one assumed the application of the maximum tax rates and a total withdrawal. The account was awarded entirely to plaintiff and there is no evidence in the record, nor does plaintiff argue, that he would be forced to withdraw all or any part of the fund to comply with any distribution ordered by the court.\nAm Jur 2d, Divorce and Separation \u00a7\u00a7 937, 948, 949.\n2. Divorce and Separation \u00a7 161 (NCI4th)\u2014 equitable distribution \u2014 post-separation payments \u2014 sufficiency of findings\nAn equitable distribution action was remanded for clarification and, if necessary, adjustment of the findings where the court awarded each party one-half of the net marital assets and found that plaintiff had made payments totaling $9,160.08 for various taxes, insurance, and reduction of principal during the separation; defendant had made similar payments totaling $4,488.02; concluded that the total net value of the marital assets of the parties was $389,273.82 and that each party, after awarding the appropriate credits, should be entitled to $194,636.91. Since plaintiff\u2019s total credit was larger than defendant\u2019s and he was awarded exactly half the net marital assets after credits, it appears that he did not receive the full amount he is due.\nAm Jur 2d, Divorce and Separation \u00a7\u00a7 915, 926.\n3. Divorce and Separation \u00a7 176 (NCI4th)\u2014 equitable distribution-equal distribution \u2014 findings\nA plaintiff in an equitable distribution action was not granted a new trial despite the failure of the trial court to enter required findings of fact where the trial court expressly concluded that an equal distribution is equitable, plaintiff does not contend otherwise, and the issue of incorrect credits can be resolved on remand. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 50-20(j).\nAm Jur 2d, Divorce and Separation \u00a7 930.\n4. Divorce and Separation \u00a7 136 (NCI4th)\u2014 equitable distribution-valuation of property\nThe trial court did not err in an equitable distribution action in the valuation of two properties where the values adopted by the trial judge for the two properties were each within the range of the plaintiff\u2019s and defendant\u2019s valuations.\nAm Jur 2d, Divorce and Separation \u00a7 937.\n5. Divorce and Separation \u00a7 111 (NCI4th)\u2014 equitable distribution \u2014 stock dividends \u2014 post-separation\nThe trial court erred in an equitable distribution action by failing to account for dividends received by defendant from marital stock in her possession between the date of separation and the final distribution.\nAm Jur 2d, Divorce and Separation \u00a7 902.\nAPPEAL from judgment entered 24 July 1990 by Judge Earl J. Fowler, Jr. in BUNCOMBE County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 3 December 1991.\nThis is an appeal from an equitable distribution judgment. The parties were married in 1965. They separated about 24 March 1987 and plaintiff was granted an absolute divorce on 20 September 1988. An equitable distribution hearing was held in December 1989 and the judgment of the court was that an equal division of the parties\u2019 marital property was equitable, subject only to adjustments for certain payments made by both parties after the date of separation. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment entered 24 July 1990.\nRiddle, Kelly & Cagle, P.A., by E. Glenn Kelly, for plaintiff-appellant.\nGum & Hillier, P.A., by Howard L. Gum, Esquire, for defendant-appellee." }, "file_name": "0788-01", "first_page_order": 816, "last_page_order": 820 }