{
  "id": 11710093,
  "name": "LINDA S. POTT, Plaintiff-Appellee v. WILLIAM H. POTT, II, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Pott v. Pott",
  "decision_date": "1997-05-20",
  "docket_number": "No. COA96-554",
  "first_page": "285",
  "last_page": "292",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "126 N.C. App. 285"
    }
  ],
  "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": "19 ALR4th 224",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 4th",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "15 ALR4th 224",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 4th",
      "weight": 3,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "365 S.E.2d 178",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "179-180",
          "parenthetical": "finding unsupported by evidence in the record cannot be upheld on appeal"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "89 N.C. App. 107",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8520601
      ],
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "108-109",
          "parenthetical": "finding unsupported by evidence in the record cannot be upheld on appeal"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/89/0107-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "444 S.E.2d 420",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "336 N.C. 575",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2536486
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/336/0575-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "433 S.E.2d 196",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "203",
          "parenthetical": "trial court is required to distribute marital property in an equitable manner"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "111 N.C. App. 460",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8522769
      ],
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "470",
          "parenthetical": "trial court is required to distribute marital property in an equitable manner"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/111/0460-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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": "872"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "82 N.C. App. 738",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8359921
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "740"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/82/0738-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "422 S.E.2d 587",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1992,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "592",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Draughon v. Draughon, 82 N.C. App. 738, 740, 347 S.E.2d 871, 872 (1986), cert. denied, 319 N.C. 103, 353 S.E.2d 107 (1987)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "108 N.C. App. 66",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8522502
      ],
      "year": 1992,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "73",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Draughon v. Draughon, 82 N.C. App. 738, 740, 347 S.E.2d 871, 872 (1986), cert. denied, 319 N.C. 103, 353 S.E.2d 107 (1987)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/108/0066-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "454 S.E.2d 701",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "703-704"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "118 N.C. App. 311",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11917967
      ],
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "314"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/118/0311-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "334 S.E.2d 256",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "263"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "76 N.C. App. 545",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8527658
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "556"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/76/0545-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "336 S.E.2d 658",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "660",
          "parenthetical": "\"every part of the law is to be given effect if this can be done by any fair and reasonable intendment\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 N.C. App. 150",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8519915
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "153",
          "parenthetical": "\"every part of the law is to be given effect if this can be done by any fair and reasonable intendment\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/78/0150-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "166 S.E.2d 663",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1969,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "670"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "275 N.C. 250",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8558370
      ],
      "year": 1969,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "260"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/275/0250-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 50-13.4",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(b)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "143 S.E. 216",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "year": 1928,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "216"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "195 N.C. 628",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8631104
      ],
      "year": 1928,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "629"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/195/0628-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "438 S.E.2d 445",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "447"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "113 N.C. App. 382",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8522407
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "384-385"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/113/0382-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 S.E.2d 292",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1955,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "295"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "241 N.C. 363",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8610541
      ],
      "year": 1955,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "366"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/241/0363-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "161 S.E.2d 1",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "5"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "273 N.C. 629",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8575910
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "632"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/273/0629-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "184 S.E.2d 873",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "874",
          "parenthetical": "legislative intent controls interpretation of statute"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "280 N.C. 163",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8570276
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "165",
          "parenthetical": "legislative intent controls interpretation of statute"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/280/0163-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "265 S.E.2d 123",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "132",
          "parenthetical": "language is unambiguous if it \"expresses a single, definite, and sensible meaning\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "300 N.C. 21",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8559728
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "36",
          "parenthetical": "language is unambiguous if it \"expresses a single, definite, and sensible meaning\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/300/0021-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "417 S.E.2d 449",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1992,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "451"
        },
        {
          "page": "452",
          "parenthetical": "words \"any other\" in section 50-20(c)(12) \"exclude those factors explicitly excluded from consideration by [the] provisions of [section] 50-20(f)\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "331 N.C. 688",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2500250
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1992,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "691"
        },
        {
          "page": "693"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/331/0688-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 50-20",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "weight": 8,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(f)"
        },
        {
          "page": "(f)",
          "parenthetical": "emphasis added"
        },
        {
          "page": "(f)",
          "parenthetical": "alimony and child support to be considered only \"[a]fter the determination of [] equitable distribution\""
        },
        {
          "page": "(c)(2)",
          "parenthetical": "court shall consider \"[a]ny obligation for support arising out of a prior marriage\""
        },
        {
          "page": "(c)(4)",
          "parenthetical": "\"[t]he need of a parent with custody of a child or children of the marriage to occupy or own the marital residence and to use or own its household effects\""
        },
        {
          "page": "(c)(l)"
        },
        {
          "page": "(c)(l)"
        },
        {
          "page": "(c)(12)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "368 S.E.2d 595",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "599-600"
        },
        {
          "page": "599-600"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "322 N.C. 396",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2515756
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "405"
        },
        {
          "page": "405"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/322/0396-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "358 S.E.2d 102",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "106"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "86 N.C. App. 418",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        12132703
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "424"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/86/0418-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "440 S.E.2d 315",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "319"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "113 N.C. App. 785",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8524662
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "791"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/113/0785-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "447 S.E.2d 392",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "336 N.C. 605",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2536777,
        2538986,
        2536623,
        2536600,
        2536444
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/336/0605-01",
        "/nc/336/0605-02",
        "/nc/336/0605-03",
        "/nc/336/0605-04",
        "/nc/336/0605-05"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "439 S.E.2d 208",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "210"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "113 N.C. App. 533",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8523419
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "536"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/113/0533-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "387 S.E.2d 181",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "183"
        },
        {
          "page": "183"
        },
        {
          "page": "183-184"
        }
      ],
      "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": "79"
        },
        {
          "page": "79"
        },
        {
          "page": "79-80"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/97/0077-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "324 S.E.2d 829",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "832"
        },
        {
          "page": "833"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "312 N.C. 770",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4755941
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "776"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/312/0770-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "453 S.E.2d 181",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "338 N.C. 669",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2518948,
        2517098,
        2517646,
        2517202,
        2520243
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/338/0669-05",
        "/nc/338/0669-02",
        "/nc/338/0669-01",
        "/nc/338/0669-04",
        "/nc/338/0669-03"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "449 S.E.2d 39",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "43"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "116 N.C. App. 513",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8524783
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "520"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/116/0513-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 779,
    "char_count": 16510,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.751,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.671938284144364e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5289236940068707
    },
    "sha256": "e848405e55fe98c5c3587e5bf0da84c813380af56352daf824faee4d99b3b1b2",
    "simhash": "1:436b5c7a760bbf70",
    "word_count": 2666
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:11:14.463583+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges LEWIS and WALKER concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "LINDA S. POTT, Plaintiff-Appellee v. WILLIAM H. POTT, II, Defendant-Appellant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MARTIN, Mark, D., Judge.\nDefendant appeals from the trial court\u2019s equitable distribution order awarding plaintiff sixty percent of the marital estate.\nPlaintiff and defendant were married on 1 July 1983, separated on 21 September 1992, and granted an absolute divorce in November 1993. Two children were born of the marriage. In addition, plaintiff bore an illegitimate child during the marriage who is not \u201cdefendant\u2019s natural or legal child\u201d (hereinafter referred to as \u201cthe child\u201d). The child is physically and mentally handicapped and requires special medical care.\nSince the date of separation, plaintiff has resided in the marital residence. The parties stipulated the fair market value of the home on the date of separation to be $108,000 with a first mortgage in the amount of $64,704.64 and an escrow account balance of $784.60. Defendant also offered evidence of a second mortgage in the amount of $9,227.59.\nDefendant is a certified public accountant who at the time of marriage had an annual salary of $27,000. In July 1988 defendant became a partner in the accounting firm of McGladrey & Pullen (McGladrey). In September 1990 defendant, Gary Mathes, and George Rogers, Jr., left McGladrey to establish their own accounting firm, Rogers, Mathes, & Pott. As part of defendant\u2019s separation agreement with McGladrey, he (a) surrendered his capital account; and (b) executed, along with his new partners, two promissory notes payable to McGladrey (McGladrey notes). As of the date of separation, defendant\u2019s portion of the unpaid balance on the McGladrey notes equaled approximately $48,000. At the time of trial, defendant was employed by Charles D. Owen Manufacturing Company.\nAfter hearing all the evidence, the trial court determined an equal division of property would be inequitable and, thus, awarded sixty percent of the net marital estate to plaintiff and forty percent to defendant.\nOn appeal defendant contends, among other things, the trial court erred by (1) failing to consider defendant\u2019s obligation on the McGladrey notes, (2) considering plaintiff\u2019s obligation to care for the child as a distributional factor, (3) failing to consider the escrow account balance in valuing the parties\u2019 marital residence on the date of separation, and (4) finding defendant\u2019s annual income to be $120,000 as of the date of trial.\nIt is beyond question the trial court is vested with wide discretion in equitable distribution actions, Sharp v. Sharp, 116 N.C. App. 513, 520, 449 S.E.2d 39, 43, disc. review denied, 338 N.C. 669, 453 S.E.2d 181 (1994); however this discretion is tempered with the strong public policy favoring an equal distribution between the parties, White v. White, 312 N.C. 770, 776, 324 S.E.2d 829, 832 (1985). As a corollary to this principle, appellate review is generally limited to a determination of whether there was an abuse of discretion. Id. at 777, 324 S.E.2d at 833.\nI.\nDefendant first contends the trial court erred by failing to consider, as a marital debt, defendant\u2019s obligation on the McGladrey notes.\nIn equitable distribution actions \u201cthe trial court is required to classify, value and distribute, if marital, the debts of the parties to the marriage.\u201d Miller v. Miller, 97 N.C. App. 77, 79, 387 S.E.2d 181, 183 (1990). Marital debts are those \u201cincurred during the marriage and before the date of separation by either spouse or both spouses for the joint benefit of the parties.\u201d Huguelet v. Huguelet, 113 N.C. App. 533, 536, 439 S.E.2d 208, 210, disc. review denied, 336 N.C. 605, 447 S.E.2d 392 (1994). See also Tucker v. Miller, 113 N.C. App. 785, 791, 440 S.E.2d 315, 319 (1994). \u201cThe party claiming the debt to be marital has the burden of proving the value of the debt on the date of separation and that it was \u2018incurred during the marriage for the joint benefit of the husband and wife.\u2019 \u201d Miller, 97 N.C. App. at 79, 387 S.E.2d at 183 (quoting Byrd v. Owens, 86 N.C. App. 418, 424, 358 S.E.2d 102, 106 (1987)). The trial court\u2019s findings of fact regarding marital debts must be specific enough to allow an appellate court to determine whether the judgment represents a correct application of the law. Armstrong v. Armstrong, 322 N.C. 396, 405, 368 S.E.2d 595, 599-600 (1988).\nIn the present case defendant proffered evidence of the McGladrey notes, a withdrawal agreement executed with McGladrey, and an amortization table indicating the approximate balance defendant owed on the notes as of the date of separation. Defendant incurred the notes as a consequence of leaving McGladrey, which occurred during the marriage and prior to the date of separation. On the date of separation, defendant owed approximately $48,000.\nAlthough the trial court\u2019s findings of fact may implicitly acknowledge the existence of defendant\u2019s $48,000 debt, the trial court erred by failing to properly distribute the debt. See Miller, 97 N.C. App. at 79-80, 387 S.E.2d at 183-184.\nII.\nDefendant next contends, citing N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 50-20(f), that the trial court erred by considering plaintiffs separate obligation to care for the child as a distributional factor.\nSection 50-20(f) provides, in pertinent part, \u201c[t]he court shall provide for an equitable distribution without regard to alimony for either party or support of the children of both parties.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 50-20(f) (1995) (emphasis added). The trial court\u2019s failure to comply with the provisions of the equitable distribution statute constitutes an abuse of discretion. See Wiencek-Adams v. Adams, 331 N.C. 688, 691, 417 S.E.2d 449, 451 (1992). The determinative question is thus whether an illegitimate child falls within the definition of \u201cchildren of both parties.\u201d\nThe phrase \u201cchildren of both parties\u201d is clearly susceptible to more than one reasonable construction. Specifically, the phrase could include (a) only the legitimate children of the marriage, or (b) any child, legitimate or illegitimate, born to either spouse. It is thus axiomatic the phrase \u201cchildren of both parties\u201d is ambiguous. See Food Town Stores v. City of Salisbury, 300 N.C. 21, 36, 265 S.E.2d 123, 132 (1980) (language is unambiguous if it \u201cexpresses a single, definite, and sensible meaning\u201d).\nIn construing an ambiguous statute, this Court is constrained by legislative intent. Person v. Garrett, 280 N.C. 163, 165, 184 S.E.2d 873, 874 (1971) (legislative intent controls interpretation of statute). To discern legislative intent, we consider the language used in other portions of the same statute, see In re Watson, 273 N.C. 629, 632, 161 S.E.2d 1, 5 (1968), as well as the purpose behind the ambiguous section, Greensboro v. Smith, 241 N.C. 363, 366, 85 S.E.2d 292, 295 (1955). Applying these principles to section 50-20(f), the phrase \u201cchildren of both parties\u201d clearly includes any child, legitimate or illegitimate.\nFirst, the legislature drafted section 50-20(f) to ensure the trial court did not consider support obligations arising out of the subject marriage in equitable distribution proceedings. See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 50-20(f) (alimony and child support to be considered only \u201c[a]fter the determination of [] equitable distribution\u201d). Cf N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 50-20(c)(2) (1995) (court shall consider \u201c[a]ny obligation for support arising out of a prior marriage\u201d) (emphasis added); 2 Robert E. Lee, North Carolina Family Law \u00a7 169.11 (4th ed. Cum. Supp. 1996) (\u201cthe right to an equitable distribution... is independent of and unrelated to the right to receive alimony or child support\u201d).\nSecond, as evidenced by section 50-20(c)(4), the legislature has, when it so intended, unambiguously limited the scope of a provision to \u201cchildren of the marriage.\u201d See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 50-20(c)(4) (\u201c[t]he need of a parent with custody of a child or children of the marriage to occupy or own the marital residence and to use or own its household effects\u201d) (emphasis added).\nThird, it is beyond question this jurisdiction will not impose the burden of child support on a non-biological parent who has not voluntarily assumed such an obligation. See Duffey v. Duffey, 113 N.C. App. 382, 384-385, 438 S.E.2d 445, 447 (1994); State v. Ray, 195 N.C. 628, 629, 143 S.E. 216, 216 (1928). Indeed, the General Assembly has expressly recognized \u201cthe [trial] judge may not order support to be paid by a person who is not the child\u2019s parent... absent evidence and a finding that such person . . . has voluntarily assumed the obligation of support in writing.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 50-13.4(b) (1995).\nPlaintiff nonetheless argues her obligation to care for the child constitutes a \u201cliability\u201d under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 50-20(c)(l). Assuming, without deciding, plaintiffs obligation to the child constitutes a \u201cliability\u201d under section 50-20(c)(l), section 50-20(f), as already noted, clearly prohibits the trial court from considering such an obligation during equitable distribution proceedings. Because a statutory provision \u201cdealing with a specific situation controls, with respect to that situation, other sections which are general in their application,\u201d Utilities Comm. v. Electric Membership Corp., 275 N.C. 250, 260, 166 S.E.2d 663, 670 (1969), the specific exclusionary language of section 50-20(f), rather than the general rule of inclusion set forth in section 50-20(c)(l), controls. Indeed, to hold otherwise would essentially render section 50-20(f) a nullity in direct contravention of the law of this jurisdiction. See Bradley v. Bradley, 78 N.C. App. 150, 153, 336 S.E.2d 658, 660 (1985) (\u201cevery part of the law is to be given effect if this can be done by any fair and reasonable intendment\u201d). Accordingly, the trial court erred by considering plaintiffs obligation to care for the child as a distributional factor.\nIII.\nDefendant also contends the trial court erred by failing to consider the escrow account balance of $784.60 in valuing the parties\u2019 marital home.\nIt is well settled \u201cthe division of the marital property is to be accomplished by using the net value of the property, i.e., its market value, if any, less the amount of any encumbrance serving to offset or reduce market value.\u201d Talent v. Talent, 76 N.C. App. 545, 556, 334 S.E.2d 256, 263 (1985). In valuing property, the trial court is required to make specific findings of fact, based on competent evidence, to support its conclusions. Armstrong, 322 N.C. at 405, 368 S.E.2d at 599-600; Stanley v. Stanley, 118 N.C. App. 311, 314, 454 S.E.2d 701, 703-704 (1995). Furthermore, \u201c \u2018upon appellate review of a case heard without a jury the trial court\u2019s findings of fact are conclusive on appeal if there is evidence to support them, even though the evidence might sustain a finding to the contrary.\u2019 \u201d Chandler v. Chandler, 108 N.C. App. 66, 73, 422 S.E.2d 587, 592 (1992) (quoting Draughon v. Draughon, 82 N.C. App. 738, 740, 347 S.E.2d 871, 872 (1986), cert. denied, 319 N.C. 103, 353 S.E.2d 107 (1987)).\nIn the present case, the parties stipulated the fair market value of the marital residence on the date of separation to be $108,000, with a first mortgage of $64,704.64 and an escrow balance of $784.60. In addition, defendant offered evidence of a second mortgage in the amount of $9,227.59. The trial court assigned $34,095 as the net value of the marital home on the date of separation.\nBecause the escrow balance is not included in the trial court\u2019s net valuation of the marital home or otherwise considered in the order, the trial court erred by failing to properly distribute this asset. See Smith v. Smith, 111 N.C. App. 460, 470, 433 S.E.2d 196, 203 (1993) (trial court is required to distribute marital property in an equitable manner), reversed in part on other grounds, 336 N.C. 575, 444 S.E.2d 420 (1994).\nIV.\nDefendant next contends the trial court\u2019s finding that defendant\u2019s annual income as of the date of trial was $120,000 is unsupported by any evidence in the record.\nThe trial court must consider the parties\u2019 income \u201cat the time the division of property is to become effectiye.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 50-20(c)(l). In the present case, although evidence was introduced as to defendant\u2019s annual income from 1983 to 1993, no evidence was introduced by either party concerning defendant\u2019s income as of the date of trial, 5 December 1994. Accordingly, the trial court\u2019s finding of fact that \u201c[a]t the time of trial, the defendant was . . . earning approximately $120,000 a year\u201d is unsupported by any evidence in the record. See Coleman v. Coleman, 89 N.C. App. 107, 108-109, 365 S.E.2d 178, 179-180 (1988) (finding unsupported by evidence in the record cannot be upheld on appeal).\nFinally, after carefully reviewing defendant\u2019s remaining assignments of error, we conclude they are without merit.\nIn summary, the trial court erred by failing to consider defendant\u2019s obligation on the McGladrey notes, by relying on plaintiff\u2019s separate obligation to the child as support for awarding sixty percent of the marital estate to plaintiff, by failing to consider the escrow account balance in valuing the parties\u2019 marital residence, and by finding defendant earned $120,000 a year at the time of trial.\nAccordingly, the trial court\u2019s order is reversed and this case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.\nReversed and remanded.\nJudges LEWIS and WALKER concur.\n. Likewise, plaintiff\u2019s obligation to care for her illegitimate child does not fall within the \u201ccatch-all\u201d provision of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 50-20(c)(12). See Wiencek-Adams, 331 N.C. at 693, 417 S.E.2d at 452 (words \u201cany other\u201d in section 50-20(c)(12) \u201cexclude those factors explicitly excluded from consideration by [the] provisions of [section] 50-20(f)\u201d).",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MARTIN, Mark, D., Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert E. Riddle, P.A., by Diane K. McDonald, for plaintiff - appellee.",
      "Marvin P. Pope, Jr., P.A., by Marvin P. Pope, Jr., for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "LINDA S. POTT, Plaintiff-Appellee v. WILLIAM H. POTT, II, Defendant-Appellant\nNo. COA96-554\n(Filed 20 May 1997)\n1. Divorce and Separation \u00a7 147 (NCI4th)\u2014 equitable distribution \u2014 debt incurred during marriage \u2014 failure to distribute\nIn an equitable distribution proceeding, the trial court erred by failing to properly distribute, as marital property, a debt incurred by defendant as a consequence of leaving an accounting partnership where the debt was incurred during the parties\u2019 marriage and prior to their separation.\nAm Jur 2d, Divorce and Separation \u00a7\u00a7 915 et seq.\n2. Divorce and Separation \u00a7 149 (NCI4th)\u2014 obligation to support illegitimate child \u2014 not distributional factor\nAs used in the statute prohibiting the trial court from considering support of the \u201cchildren of both parties\u201d in making an equitable distribution, N.C.G.S. \u00a7 50-20(f), the phrase \u201cchildren of both parties\u201d includes any legitimate or illegitimate child born to either spouse. Therefore, the trial court erred in considering as a distributional factor the wife\u2019s separate obligation to care for an illegitimate child born to her during the marriage of the parties, even if her obligation constitutes a \u201cliability\u201d under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 50-20(c)(l), since the specific exclusionary language of \u00a7 50-20(f) controls.\nAm Jur 2d, Divorce and Separation \u00a7 925.\nAppointment or discharge of receiver for marital or community property necessitated by suit for divorce or separation. 15 ALR4th 224.\nDivorce and separation: effect of trial court giving consideration to needs of children in making property division \u2014 modern status. 19 ALR4th 224.\n3. Divorce and Separation \u00a7 134 (NCI4th)\u2014 equitable distribution \u2014 valuation of home \u2014 escrow balance\nThe trial court erred by failing to include or consider the escrow balance in the net valuation of the marital home.\nAm Jur 2d, Divorce and Separation \u00a7 903.\nAppointment or discharge of receiver for marital or community property necessitated by suit for divorce or separation. 15 ALR4th 224.\n4. Divorce and Separation \u00a7 145 (NCI4th)\u2014 equitable distribution \u2014 income\u2014finding unsupported by the evidence\nThe trial court\u2019s findings that defendant\u2019s income at the date of trial was $120,000 was unsupported by the evidence where evidence was introduced of defendant\u2019s income for ten years prior to the year of the trial, but neither party introduced evidence of defendant\u2019s income at the time of the trial.\nAm Jur 2d, Divorce and Separation \u00a7 918.\nAppointment or discharge of receiver for marital or community property necessitated by suit for divorce or separation. 15 ALR4th 224.\nAppeal by defendant from order entered 30 November 1995 by Judge Shirley H. Brown in Buncombe County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 29 January 1997.\nRobert E. Riddle, P.A., by Diane K. McDonald, for plaintiff - appellee.\nMarvin P. Pope, Jr., P.A., by Marvin P. Pope, Jr., for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0285-01",
  "first_page_order": 323,
  "last_page_order": 330
}