{
  "id": 11871689,
  "name": "HENRY CARLTON GRASTY, Plaintiff/Appellee v. NANCY GRASTY, Defendant/Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Grasty v. Grasty",
  "decision_date": "1997-04-01",
  "docket_number": "No. COA96-642",
  "first_page": "736",
  "last_page": "741",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "125 N.C. App. 736"
    }
  ],
  "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": "51 ALR4th 11",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 4th",
      "weight": 3,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "15 ALR4th 224",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 4th",
      "weight": 3,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "256 S.E.2d 793",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "297 N.C. 618",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8573491
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/297/0618-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "354 S.E.2d 228",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "233",
          "parenthetical": "equitable distribution is one means of property division"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "319 N.C. 287",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4741751
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "292",
          "parenthetical": "equitable distribution is one means of property division"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/319/0287-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "337 S.E.2d 856",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "315 N.C. 182",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4719882,
        4716177,
        4714993,
        4714074,
        4715326
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/315/0182-03",
        "/nc/315/0182-02",
        "/nc/315/0182-05",
        "/nc/315/0182-04",
        "/nc/315/0182-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "331 S.E.2d 765",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "767"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "76 N.C. App. 134",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8526769
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "137"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/76/0134-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "74 L. Ed. 2d 642",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d",
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "within judge's discretion to appoint expert"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "459 U.S. 1080",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6495875
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "within judge's discretion to appoint expert"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/459/1080-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "293 S.E.2d 569",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "585",
          "parenthetical": "within judge's discretion to appoint expert"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "306 N.C. 151",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8567859
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "175-76",
          "parenthetical": "within judge's discretion to appoint expert"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/306/0151-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "441 S.E.2d 613",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "619",
          "parenthetical": "trial court judge is \"sole arbiter of credibility and may reject the testimony of any witness in whole or in part\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "114 N.C. App. 125",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8527235
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "134",
          "parenthetical": "trial court judge is \"sole arbiter of credibility and may reject the testimony of any witness in whole or in part\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/114/0125-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "141 S.E.2d 875",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1965,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "877"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "264 N.C. 485",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8574103
      ],
      "year": 1965,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "488"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/264/0485-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "385 S.E.2d 487",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1989,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "492",
          "parenthetical": "no right to jury trial in equitable distribution action"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "325 N.C. 502",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2491456
      ],
      "year": 1989,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "511",
          "parenthetical": "no right to jury trial in equitable distribution action"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/325/0502-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "355 S.E.2d 519",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "523",
          "parenthetical": "argument that trial court \"erred in not giving sufficient weight to the testimony of' expert rejected on grounds that credibility of witness was for the trial court"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 N.C. App. 484",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        12170056
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "491",
          "parenthetical": "argument that trial court \"erred in not giving sufficient weight to the testimony of' expert rejected on grounds that credibility of witness was for the trial court"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/85/0484-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "387 S.E.2d 181",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "184",
          "parenthetical": "requirement that court' value property \"exist[s] only when evidence is presented to the trial court which supports the claimed... valuation\""
        },
        {
          "page": "183"
        },
        {
          "page": "184",
          "parenthetical": "parties have had ample opportunity to present evidence and will not be given a second opportunity"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "97 N.C. App. 77",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8519562
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "80",
          "parenthetical": "requirement that court' value property \"exist[s] only when evidence is presented to the trial court which supports the claimed... valuation\""
        },
        {
          "page": "79"
        },
        {
          "page": "80"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/97/0077-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "426 S.E.2d 80",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "83-84",
          "parenthetical": "trial court did not err in failing to place a value on pension where no evidence presented as to value of pension"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "109 N.C. App. 36",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8524123
      ],
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "40-41",
          "parenthetical": "trial court did not err in failing to place a value on pension where no evidence presented as to value of pension"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/109/0036-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "358 S.E.2d 102",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "105",
          "parenthetical": "computer distributing business"
        },
        {
          "page": "106",
          "parenthetical": "personal guarantees must be valued \"if the defendant presents sufficient evidence as to their value\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "86 N.C. App. 418",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        12132703
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "421",
          "parenthetical": "computer distributing business"
        },
        {
          "page": "424"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/86/0418-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "353 S.E.2d 107",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "319 N.C. 103",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4743692,
        4740912,
        4746258,
        4740023,
        4740696
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/319/0103-04",
        "/nc/319/0103-02",
        "/nc/319/0103-03",
        "/nc/319/0103-01",
        "/nc/319/0103-05"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "347 S.E.2d 871",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "873",
          "parenthetical": "landscaping business"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "82 N.C. App. 738",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8359921
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "741",
          "parenthetical": "landscaping business"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/82/0738-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "335 S.E.2d 316",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "314 N.C. 543",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4689381,
        4687407,
        4695924,
        4688661,
        4687388
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/314/0543-04",
        "/nc/314/0543-05",
        "/nc/314/0543-03",
        "/nc/314/0543-02",
        "/nc/314/0543-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "331 S.E.2d 266",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "272"
        },
        {
          "page": "272"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "75 N.C. App. 414",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8526019
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "422"
        },
        {
          "page": "422"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/75/0414-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 499,
    "char_count": 10533,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.716,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.5254105143524853e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6701164816944926
    },
    "sha256": "db4b25ef6fc1ac64e9ad5f2bf4a2f3883a48e065b89f7f48c2d5e1db805ec43b",
    "simhash": "1:0365f02e363a3bf1",
    "word_count": 1728
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:18:02.941264+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges WALKER and McGEE concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "HENRY CARLTON GRASTY, Plaintiff/Appellee v. NANCY GRASTY, Defendant/Appellant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "GREENE, Judge.\nNancy Grasty (defendant) appeals an equitable distribution judgment in which the trial court distributed a service station and wrecker business (Grasty Service) to Henry Grasty (plaintiff).\nThe plaintiff and defendant were married in December 1971, separated on 26 January 1992, and subsequently divorced in March 1993. Both plaintiff and defendant requested equitable distribution. At the equitable distribution hearing the defendant presented evidence that Grasty Service was a marital asset and based on expert testimony had a value of at least $100,000. The trial court found that Grasty Service was a marital asset and distributed the asset to the plaintiff. With respect to the value of Grasty Service the trial court entered the following finding:\n[t]he defendant attempted to establish the net fair market value of the plaintiff\u2019s interest in Grasty Service through expert testimony which the court found to be wholly incredible and without reasonable basis and therefore failed to establish by the greater weight of the evidence the value of the plaintiffs interest in the business as of the date of the parties\u2019 separation[; and] plaintiff offered no value for [Grasty Service].\nThe issues are whether the trial court erred (I) in failing to value Grasty Service based on the evidence presented; and (II) in failing to appoint an expert to value Grasty Service.\nThe defendant argues that in this equitable distribution proceeding the trial court was required to determine the value of the plaintiff\u2019s interest in Grasty Service and that in the absence of evidence presented by the parties, the trial court must \u201cappoint an expert or invoke other inherent powers, or seek out other evidence on which to base a valuation.\u201d\nI\nThis Court has repeatedly held that the trial court has an obligation to \u201cmake specific findings regarding the value\u201d of any property classified as marital, including any business owned by one of the parties to a marriage. Poore v. Poore, 75 N.C. App. 414, 422, 331 S.E.2d 266, 272 (dental practice), disc. rev. denied, 314 N.C. 543, 335 S.E.2d 316 (1985); see e.g., Draughon v. Draughon, 82 N.C. App. 738, 741, 347 S.E.2d 871, 873 (1986) (landscaping business), disc. rev. denied, 319 N.C. 103, 353 S.E.2d 107 (1987); Byrd v. Owens, 86 N.C. App. 418, 421, 358 S.E.2d 102,105 (1987) (computer distributing business). This obligation, however, exists only when there is credible evidence supporting the value of the asset. Albritton v. Albritton, 109 N.C. App. 36, 40-41, 426 S.E.2d 80, 83-84 (1993) (trial court did not err in failing to place a value on pension where no evidence presented as to value of pension); Byrd, 86 N.C. App. at 424, 358 S.E.2d at 106 (personal guarantees must be valued \u201cif the defendant presents sufficient evidence as to their value\u201d); Miller v. Miller, 97 N.C. App. 77, 80, 387 S.E.2d 181, 184 (1990) (requirement that court' value property \u201cexist[s] only when evidence is presented to the trial court which supports the claimed... valuation\u201d); 1 Michael Asimow, et al., Valuation and Distribution of Marital Property \u00a7 19.02[2], at 14-16 (1996) (\u201cit is the responsibility of the parties to present sufficient evidence regarding valuation\u201d).\nThe credibility of the evidence in an equitable distribution trial is for the trial court. Hunt v. Hunt, 85 N.C. App. 484, 491, 355 S.E.2d 519, 523 (1987) (argument that trial court \u201cerred in not giving sufficient weight to the testimony of\u2019 expert rejected on grounds that credibility of witness was for the trial court). The trial court, as the finder of fact in an equitable distribution case, Kiser v. Kiser, 325 N.C. 502, 511, 385 S.E.2d 487, 492 (1989) (no right to jury trial in equitable distribution action), has \u201cthe right to believe all that a witness testified to, or to believe nothing that a witness testified to, or to believe part of the testimony and to disbelieve part of it.\u201d Brown v. Brown, 264 N.C. 485, 488, 141 S.E.2d 875, 877 (1965); Fox v. Fox, 114 N.C. App. 125, 134, 441 S.E.2d 613, 619 (1994) (trial court judge is \u201csole arbiter of credibility and may reject the testimony of any witness in whole or in part\u201d).\nIn this case the defendant offered evidence as to the value of Grasty Service and the trial court found it to be \u201cwholly incredible and without reasonable basis.\u201d Because the defendant failed to present credible evidence as to the value of Grasty Service, the trial court did not err in failing to value that asset.\nII\nWe also reject the argument of the defendant that in the absence of credible evidence as to the value of a marital asset the trial court is required to appoint an expert to appraise the asset. Our Rules of Evidence provide that the trial court \u201cmay\u201d appoint an expert to value an asset in an equitable distribution proceeding, N.C.G.S. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 706(a) (1992); Poore, 75 N.C. App. at 422, 331 S.E.2d at 272, and call that expert as a witness in the trial. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 706(a); N.C.G.S. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 614(a) (1992) (court may call witness). Courts, however, \u201crarely call witnesses, and rightly so\u201d because it \u201cis hard for judges to maintain impartiality while becoming an active participant in summoning witnesses.\u201d Christopher B. Mueller & Laird C. Kirkpatrick, Federal Evidence \u00a7 335, at 542-46 (2d ed. 1994) (hereinafter Federal Evidence). Furthermore, the calling of a witness by the trial court \u201cinterferes with the presentation of evidence by the parties, depriving them of a portion of the control which the adversary system normally confers upon them.\u201d Federal Evidence \u00a7 366, at 737. In any event, the decision to appoint an expert and to call that expert as a witness are matters left to the sound discretion of the trial court. Federal Evidence \u00a7 367, at 741; see State v. Brown, 306 N.C. 151, 175-76, 293 S.E.2d 569, 585, cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1080, 74 L. Ed. 2d 642 (1982) (within judge\u2019s discretion to appoint expert). In this case there is nothing to suggest that the trial court abused its discretion in not appointing an expert to value Grasty Service. The trial court was certainly not required, as argued by the defendant, to appoint an expert.\nBecause only those assets and debts that are classified as marital property and valued are subject to distribution under the Equitable Distribution Act (Act), Cable v. Cable, 76 N.C. App. 134, 137, 331 S.E.2d 765, 767, disc. rev. denied, 315 N.C. 182, 337 S.E.2d 856 (1985); see Miller, 97 N.C. App. at 79, 387 S.E.2d at 183, and because the trial court (on this record) properly refused to assign a value to Grasty Service, plaintiff\u2019s interest in Grasty Service is not subject to distribution under the Act. The trial court therefore erred in distributing Grasty Service in this equitable distribution proceeding. Accordingly, we remand to the trial court for the entry of a new equitable distribution judgment based on this record (without the taking of new evidence). See Miller, 97 N.C. App. at 80, 387 S.E.2d at 184 (parties have had ample opportunity to present evidence and will not be given a second opportunity). Any interest the parties have in Grasty Service will necessarily pass outside the Act and be determined by alternative means of property division, including other relevant statutes, the common law or private agreements. Hagler v. Hagler, 319 N.C. 287, 292, 354 S.E.2d 228, 233 (1987) (equitable distribution is one means of property division); see Leatherman v. Leatherman, 297 N.C. 618, 256 S.E.2d 793 (1979).\nWe have reviewed the defendant\u2019s remaining arguments and determine without discussion that there was no error with regard to each.\nAffirmed in part and remanded.\nJudges WALKER and McGEE concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "GREENE, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Patrick U. Smathers, P.A., by Patrick U. Smathers, for plaintiff - appellee.",
      "Hyler & Lopez, by George B. Hyler Jr. and Robert J. Lopez, for defendant-appellant. \u25a0"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "HENRY CARLTON GRASTY, Plaintiff/Appellee v. NANCY GRASTY, Defendant/Appellant\nNo. COA96-642\n(Filed 1 April 1997)\n1. Divorce and Separation \u00a7 135 (NCI4th)\u2014 equitable distribution \u2014 marital property \u2014 value\u2014evidence unreasonable and not credible\nIn an equitable distribution proceeding, the trial court did not err in failing to value a business classified as marital property where the court found defendant\u2019s evidence of the value of the business to be \u201cwholly incredible and without reasonable basis,\u201d and plaintiff did not offer any evidence of the value of the business.\nAm Jur 2d, Divorce and Separation \u00a7\u00a7 937 et seq.\nAppointment or discharge of receiver for marital or community property necessitated by suit for divorce or separation. 15 ALR4th 224.\nNecessity that divorce court value property before distributing it. 51 ALR4th 11.\n2. Divorce and Separation \u00a7 135 (NCI4th)\u2014 equitable distribution \u2014 marital asset \u2014 no credible evidence of value \u2014 failure to appoint appraiser\nThe trial court did not abuse its discretion by not appointing an expert to appraise a marital asset in an equitable distribution proceeding even though there was no credible evidence of the value of the marital asset. The decision to appoint an expert and to call the expert as a witness are matters left to the sound discretion of the trial court. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 8C-1, Rules 614(a), 706(a)\nAm Jur 2d, Divorce and Separation \u00a7\u00a7 937 et seq.\nAppointment or discharge of receiver for marital or community property necessitated by suit for divorce or separation. 15 ALR4th 224.\nNecessity that divorce court value property before distributing it. 51 ALR4th 11.\n3. Divorce and Separation \u00a7 135 (NCI4th)\u2014 equitable distribution \u2014 marital asset \u2014 absence of valuation \u2014 not distributable\nThe trial court erred in distributing a business found to be a marital asset in an equitable distribution proceeding where the trial court refused to value the business since only assets which are classified as marital property and valued are subject to distribution. Any interest the parties have in the business will pass outside the Equitable Distribution Act and be determined by alternative means of property division, including other relevant statutes, the common law or private agreements.\nAm Jur 2d, Divorce and Separation \u00a7\u00a7 937 et seq.\nAppointment or discharge of receiver for marital or community property necessitated by suit for divorce or separation. 15 ALR4th 224.\nNecessity that divorce court value property before distributing it. 51 ALR4th 11.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment entered 19 December 1995 in Haywood County District Court by Judge Steven J. Bryant. Heard in the Court of Appeals 19 February 1997.\nPatrick U. Smathers, P.A., by Patrick U. Smathers, for plaintiff - appellee.\nHyler & Lopez, by George B. Hyler Jr. and Robert J. Lopez, for defendant-appellant. \u25a0"
  },
  "file_name": "0736-01",
  "first_page_order": 774,
  "last_page_order": 779
}