{
  "id": 8209334,
  "name": "DEBORAH DODSON, Plaintiff-appellee v. DAVID DODSON, Defendant-appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Dodson v. Dodson",
  "decision_date": "2007-08-07",
  "docket_number": "No. COA06-969",
  "first_page": "265",
  "last_page": "271",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "185 N.C. App. 265"
    }
  ],
  "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": "623 S.E.2d 45",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12634685
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "50"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/623/0045-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "626 S.E.2d 289",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12635152
      ],
      "year": 2006,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "293"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/626/0289-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "163 S.E.2d 353",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "357"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "274 N.C. 328",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560069
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "333"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/274/0328-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "479 S.E.2d 32",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "34"
        },
        {
          "page": "34",
          "parenthetical": "concluding that the appellant failed to include relevant portions of the transcript and therefore, this Court would not speculate as to error by the trial court"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "125 N.C. App. 136",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11865801
      ],
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "139"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/125/0136-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "610 S.E.2d 237",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "239",
          "parenthetical": "citing Pharr v. Worley, 125 N.C. App. 136, 139, 479 S.E.2d 32, 34 (1997)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "169 N.C. App. 428",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8470685
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "430",
          "parenthetical": "citing Pharr v. Worley, 125 N.C. App. 136, 139, 479 S.E.2d 32, 34 (1997)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/169/0428-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "186 S.E.2d 665",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "666"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "13 N.C. App. 641",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8555057
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "642"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/13/0641-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "272 S.E.2d 911",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "915",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Hill v. Hill, 13 N.C. App. 641, 642, 186 S.E.2d 665, 666 (1972)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "50 N.C. App. 112",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2677519
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "118",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Hill v. Hill, 13 N.C. App. 641, 642, 186 S.E.2d 665, 666 (1972)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/50/0112-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "175 N.C. App. 66",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8350019
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "74"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/175/0066-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "516 S.E.2d 647",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "649"
        },
        {
          "page": "649"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "134 N.C. App. 110",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11143141
      ],
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "112"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/134/0110-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "360 N.C. 333",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        3797218
      ],
      "year": 2006,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "339"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/360/0333-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "346 S.E.2d 220",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "222"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "82 N.C. App. 289",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8358742
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "292"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/82/0289-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "393 S.E.2d 570",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "573",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Adkins v. Adkins, 82 N.C. App. 289, 292, 346 S.E.2d 220, 222 (1986)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "99 N.C. App. 380",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8523187
      ],
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "385",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Adkins v. Adkins, 82 N.C. App. 289, 292, 346 S.E.2d 220, 222 (1986)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/99/0380-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "501 S.E.2d 649",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "656",
          "parenthetical": "internal quotations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "348 N.C. 537",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        1659850
      ],
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "547",
          "parenthetical": "internal quotations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/348/0537-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "290 S.E.2d 653",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "658"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "305 N.C. 446",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8571060
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "453"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/305/0446-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "523 S.E.2d 729",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "731",
          "parenthetical": "citing Quick v. Quick, 305 N.C. 446, 453, 290 S.E.2d 653, 658 (1982)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "136 N.C. App. 247",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11239177
      ],
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "249-50",
          "parenthetical": "citing Quick v. Quick, 305 N.C. 446, 453, 290 S.E.2d 653, 658 (1982)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/136/0247-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "255 S.E.2d 174",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "181",
          "parenthetical": "internal quotation omitted"
        },
        {
          "page": "181"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "297 N.C. 363",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8570355
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "374",
          "parenthetical": "internal quotation omitted"
        },
        {
          "page": "374"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/297/0363-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "172 S.E.2d 495",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "276 N.C. 371",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561448
      ],
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/276/0371-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "355 S.E.2d 230",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "231",
          "parenthetical": "citing Morse v. Curtis, 276 N.C. 371, 172 S.E.2d 495 (1970)"
        },
        {
          "page": "231",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 N.C. App. 524",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        12170112
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "526",
          "parenthetical": "citing Morse v. Curtis, 276 N.C. 371, 172 S.E.2d 495 (1970)"
        },
        {
          "page": "526"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/85/0524-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "290 S.E.2d 653",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "658"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "305 N.C. 446",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8571060
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "453"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/305/0446-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "523 S.E.2d 729",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "731",
          "parenthetical": "citing Quick v. Quick, 305 N.C. 446, 453, 290 S.E.2d 653, 658 (1982)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "136 N.C. App. 247",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11239177
      ],
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "249-50",
          "parenthetical": "citing Quick v. Quick, 305 N.C. 446, 453, 290 S.E.2d 653, 658 (1982)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/136/0247-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 684,
    "char_count": 14584,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.707,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.8591662004228935e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3659500997934629
    },
    "sha256": "4060a616f64f0fa1660ef219f557e01bd7bc2218addc0842fa42c3265841f0ab",
    "simhash": "1:85a0c762624fa9e9",
    "word_count": 2364
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:04:26.584781+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judge WYNN concurs.",
      "Judge TYSON dissents in a separate opinion."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "DEBORAH DODSON, Plaintiff-appellee v. DAVID DODSON, Defendant-appellant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "CALABRIA, Judge.\nDavid Dodson (\u201cdefendant\u201d) appeals from an order modifying alimony. We affirm.\nDeborah Dodson (\u201cplaintiff\u2019) and defendant (collectively, \u201cthe parties\u201d) were married on 8 October 1977 and separated on 28 January 2002. Prior to the parties\u2019 divorce on 30 April 2004, plaintiff filed a complaint for post separation support, alimony, and attorney\u2019s fees and the parties entered into an arbitration agreement regarding alimony, equitable distribution, and attorney\u2019s fees. At the time of the arbitration hearing on 10 May 2004, two of the parties\u2019 three children had reached the age of majority, and two of them lived with the plaintiff. One of the children living with the plaintiff was home-schooled at the age of 18 and the other was the parties\u2019 minor child with severe medical conditions requiring supervision.\nSince the plaintiff was unemployed, the arbitrator imputed the plaintiff\u2019s income at the rate of $6.00 per hour for 30 hours a week and determined the plaintiff\u2019s reasonable and necessary living expenses were approximately $2,330.00 per month. The arbitrator further determined the defendant had the ability to pay alimony in the amount of $2,200.00 per month based on his salary and monthly expenses. On 4 June 2004, the arbitrator ordered the defendant to pay alimony in the amount of $2,200.00 per month for 10 years as well as attorney\u2019s fees in the amount of $5,739.99. On 16 July 2004, the trial court confirmed the arbitrator\u2019s decision regarding the amount and the duration of the alimony and awarded attorney\u2019s fees.\nOn 17 August 2004, defendant filed motions for tax exemptions and a modification of the alimony award and alleged a change in circumstances. The circumstances included, inter alia, the children were no longer minors, the plaintiff\u2019s monthly income was actually higher and defendant\u2019s income was substantially lower than the amounts the arbitrator had determined.\nOn 12 August 2005, the trial court denied the motion requesting dependency tax exemptions for the 2003 and 2004 tax years because all three children had reached the age of majority and the defendant\u2019s child support obligation had terminated. On that same date, the trial court granted defendant\u2019s motion for modification of alimony due to his reduction in income. His monthly alimony payments were modified to $1,826.00 per month.\nOn 22 August 2005, defendant filed a motion to reconsider the 12 August 2005 order modifying alimony. The trial court denied most of defendant\u2019s requests by orders on 10 February 2006, and preserved the previous alimony order of $1,826,00 per month. From the 12 August 2005 order, defendant appeals.\nOn appeal, defendant brings forth several arguments relating to the alimony award. \u201cDecisions regarding the amount of alimony are left to the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be disturbed on appeal unless there has been a manifest abuse of that discretion.\u201d See e.g., Bookholt v. Bookholt, 136 N.C. App. 247, 249-50, 523 S.E.2d 729, 731 (1999) (citing Quick v. Quick, 305 N.C. 446, 453, 290 S.E.2d 653, 658 (1982)). \u201cAn abuse of discretion occurs when the ruling is manifestly unsupported by reason or is so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision.\u201d Briley v. Farabow, 348 N.C. 537, 547, 501 S.E.2d 649, 656 (1998) (internal quotations omitted).\nThe review of the trial court\u2019s findings of fact are limited to \u201cwhether there is competent evidence to support the findings of fact and whether the findings support the conclusions of law.\u201d Hartsell v. Hartsell, 99 N.C. App. 380, 385, 393 S.E.2d 570, 573 (1990) (quoting Adkins v. Adkins, 82 N.C. App. 289, 292, 346 S.E.2d 220, 222 (1986)). \u201c[T]he trial court\u2019s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo by this Court.\u201d State v. Ripley, 360 N.C. 333, 339, 626 S.E.2d 289, 293 (2006).\nThe defendant must assign error to each conclusion he believes is not supported by the evidence, or the conclusions will be deemed binding on appeal. N.C. R. App. P. 10 (2006); see also Fran\u2019s Pecans, Inc. v. Greene, 134 N.C. App. 110, 112, 516 S.E.2d 647, 649 (1999). Failure to assign error to such conclusions of law \u201cconstitutes an acceptance of the conclusion and a waiver of the right to challenge said conclusion as unsupported by the facts.\u201d Fran\u2019s Pecans at 112, 516 S.E.2d at 649; see also In re J.A.A., 175 N.C. App. 66, 74, 623 S.E.2d 45, 50 (2005).\nIn the case sub judice, the defendant does not assign error to any of the trial court\u2019s conclusions of law and therefore waived his right to challenge the conclusions. Hence, the conclusions of law are binding and the trial court\u2019s order should be affirmed. Furthermore, it is difficult for this Court to determine if the findings of fact were supported by competent evidence because the transcript is incomplete. Specifically, only 36 of over 100 pages of the transcript were included in the record. Under N.C. R. App. P. 9(c)(2) (2007), a partial transcript is allowed \u201cprovided that when the verbatim transcript is designated to show the testimonial evidence, so much of the testimonial evidence must be designated as is necessary for an understanding of all errors assigned.\u201d Id. \u201cIt is the duty of the appellant to see that the record is properly prepared and transmitted.\u201d Tucker v. Telephone Co., 50 N.C. App. 112, 118, 272 S.E.2d 911, 915 (1980) (quoting Hill v. Hill, 13 N.C. App. 641, 642, 186 S.E.2d 665, 666 (1972)). Further, the appellant has the duty to ensure that the record is complete. Faulkenberry v. Faulkenberry, 169 N.C. App. 428, 430, 610 S.E.2d 237, 239 (2005) (citing Pharr v. Worley, 125 N.C. App. 136, 139, 479 S.E.2d 32, 34 (1997)).\nHere, the incomplete transcript in the record is inadequate under N.C. R. App. P. 9(c)(2) and prevents this Court from determining the context of some of the responses in the selected transcript. Although the sections of the transcript that were provided properly address some of the assignments of error, without access to all the evidence presented to the trial court, it is impossible for this Court to understand all the errors assigned by the defendant.\nAbsent a complete transcript, it is impossible for this Court to determine whether or not the challenged findings of fact are supported by the evidence, therefore, we assume that the findings are in fact supported. \u201cAn appellate court is not required to, and should not, assume error by the trial judge when none appears on the record before the appellate court.\u201d State v. Williams, 274 N.C. 328, 333, 163 S.E.2d 353, 357 (1968). Based on the exclusions of the transcript, we cannot review the defendant\u2019s assignments of error that allege the trial court erred in making findings of fact that were not supported by competent evidence. See Pharr at 139, 479 S.E.2d at 34 (concluding that the appellant failed to include relevant portions of the transcript and therefore, this Court would not speculate as to error by the trial court). Accordingly, the trial court\u2019s findings of facts are deemed to be supported by competent evidence. This assignment of error is overruled.\nAffirmed.\nJudge WYNN concurs.\nJudge TYSON dissents in a separate opinion.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "CALABRIA, Judge."
      },
      {
        "text": "TYSON, Judge\ndissenting.\nThe majority\u2019s opinion affirms the trial court\u2019s order and holds: (1) defendant failed to assign error to any of the trial court\u2019s conclusions of law and those conclusions are binding on appeal and (2) defendant\u2019s assignments of error cannot be reviewed due to an incomplete transcript. I disagree and respectfully dissent.\nI. Standard of Review\nNormally, \u201c[decisions regarding the amount of alimony are left to the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be disturbed on appeal unless there has been a manifest abuse of that discretion.\u201d Bookholt v. Bookholt, 136 N.C. App. 247, 249-50, 523 S.E.2d 729, 731 (1999) (citing Quick v. Quick, 305 N.C. 446, 453, 290 S.E.2d 653, 658 (1982)). \u201cHowever, if there is no competent evidence to support a finding of fact, an exception to the finding must be sustained and a judgment or order predicated upon such erroneous findings must be reversed.\u201d Bridges v. Bridges, 85 N.C. App. 524, 526, 355 S.E.2d 230, 231 (1987) (citing Morse v. Curtis, 276 N.C. 371, 172 S.E.2d 495 (1970)).\nAlso, defendant\u2019s requests for admissions by plaintiff were \u201cdeemed admitted\u201d by court order entered 11 February 2005 and are binding upon the trial court and here. Our Supreme Court has stated:\n[A] judicial or solemn admission ... is a formal concession made by a party (usually through counsel) in the course of litigation for the purpose of withdrawing a particular fact from the realm of dispute .... Such an admission is not evidence, but rather removes the admitted fact from the field of evidence by formally conceding its existence. It is binding in every sense.\nWoods v. Smith, 297 N.C. 363, 374, 255 S.E.2d 174, 181 (1979) (internal quotation omitted) (emphasis supplied).\nII. Analysis\nA. Calculation Errors\nDefendant contends the trial court: (1) ignored undisputed and admitted evidence of plaintiff\u2019s income and (2) failed to credit rental income plaintiff is receiving from their emancipated adult children. Conclusion of law numbered 2 states, \u201cthere has been a substantial change in material circumstances relating to the financial conditions and circumstances of the parties since the Prior Order was entered . . . July 16, 2004, which justifies modification of the Defendant\u2019s alimony obligation.\u201d As stated by the majority\u2019s opinion, defendant does not challenge this conclusion of law, which concluded defendant\u2019s motion had merit. Defendant challenges whether the trial court erred in calculating the amount to modify alimony.\nAdmitted and uncontradicted evidence shows: (1) plaintiffs income has increased from an imputed net income of $600.00 to an actual net income of $1,725.28 per month; (2) plaintiffs living expenses at the time of the prior order totaled $2,330.00 per month; (3) at the time of the prior order, plaintiff lived with' her minor son and adult daughter and was allocated one-half $219.50 per month of the mortgage payment on the former marital home; (4) plaintiff moved from North Carolina to South Carolina for work and was responsible for rental payments on her home of $850.00 per month; (5) plaintiff now lives with her adult son and adult daughter in a three bedroom home; (6) plaintiff receives rental contributions for rental and household expenses from both her adult son and adult daughter; (7) the prior order projected defendant\u2019s gross income for 2004 to be between $65,000.00 and $70,000.00; (8) defendant\u2019s 2004 income was $50,844.00; (9) defendant\u2019s projected 2005 net income based on his 15 April 2005 pay stub is $3,841.00 per month; (10) the 15 April 2005 pay stub amount reflected an atypical and non-recurring gross incentive bonus received on 18 March 2005 in the amount of $1,988.00; and (11) defendant\u2019s reasonable and necessary living expenses are $2,300.00 per month.\nThe prior order calculated defendant\u2019s monthly alimony payment to be $2,200.00 based upon plaintiff\u2019s reasonable and necessary living expenses of $2,330.00 minus her imputed net income of $600.00 to determine a shortfall of $1,730.00 per month. This determined shortfall was then adjusted to reflect income taxes and recalculated to be $2,200.00.\nBased upon the admitted facts and taking plaintiff\u2019s reasonable and necessary expenses as unchanged and subtracting her current net income, equates to a shortfall of $604.72 per month. Based on the same income tax rate used in the prior order, defendant\u2019s alimony payment should be modified to $769.00 per month. The trial court\u2019s determination that defendant\u2019s monthly alimony payments should be reduced from $2,200.00 per month to $1,826.00 per month is not based on the admitted and binding evidence in the record to support the trial court\u2019s finding of fact. Without competent evidence \u201can exception to the finding must be sustained and a judgment or order predicated upon such erroneous findings must be reversed.\u201d Bridges, 85 N.C. App. at 526, 355 S.E.2d at 231 (citation omitted). Using the same analysis and calculations as in the prior order sought to be modified, defendant\u2019s reduced obligation still remains more than $1,000.00 per month higher than plaintiff\u2019s admissions allow.\nB. Transcript\nUnder Rule 9(c)(2) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure, a partial transcript is allowed \u201cprovided that when the verbatim transcript is designated to show the testimonial evidence, so much of the testimonial evidence must be designated as is necessary for an understanding of all errors assigned.\u201d N.C.R. App P. 9(c)(2) (2007). The partial transcript in the record and briefs contain all necessary testimonial evidence needed to understand and rule upon the errors assigned.\nIII. Conclusion\nPlaintiff admitted all facts in defendant\u2019s request for admissions and these admitted facts were entered by order of the court. These admissions were no longer in \u201cthe realm of dispute\u201d and are \u201cbinding in every sense.\u201d Woods, 297 N.C. at 374, 255 S.E.2d at 181. The trial court miscalculated the required reduction of defendant\u2019s alimony payments from $2,200.00 to $1,826.00 per month. I vote to remand to the trial court for correction of defendant\u2019s income and a determination of plaintiff\u2019s reasonable and necessary living expenses taking into account rental amounts she receives from her emancipated adult children who are living with her. I respectfully dissent.",
        "type": "dissent",
        "author": "TYSON, Judge"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "No brief filed for plaintiff-appellee.",
      "Shanahan Law Group, by Brandon S. Neuman and Rieran J. Shanahan, for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "DEBORAH DODSON, Plaintiff-appellee v. DAVID DODSON, Defendant-appellant\nNo. COA06-969\n(Filed 7 August 2007)\nDivorce\u2014 alimony \u2014 modification of alimony \u2014 conclusions of law \u2014 findings of fact\nThe trial court did not abuse its discretion in the amount it reduced defendant\u2019s alimony obligation because: (1) defendant did not assign error to any of the trial court\u2019s conclusions of law, and therefore waived his right to challenge the conclusions; and (2) the findings of fact are deemed to be supported by competent evidence when the transcript was incomplete, appellant has the duty to see the record is properly prepared and transmitted, and an appellate court is not required to and should not assume error by the trial judge when none appears on the record before the appellate court.\nJudge TYSON dissenting in a separate opinion.\nAppeal by defendant from order entered 12 August 2005 by Judge Donna Stroud in Wake County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 8 May 2007.\nNo brief filed for plaintiff-appellee.\nShanahan Law Group, by Brandon S. Neuman and Rieran J. Shanahan, for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0265-01",
  "first_page_order": 297,
  "last_page_order": 303
}