{
  "id": 8554924,
  "name": "BETTY C. STEELE v. DONALD HOWARD STEELE, JR.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Steele v. Steele",
  "decision_date": "1978-06-06",
  "docket_number": "No. 7727DC599",
  "first_page": "601",
  "last_page": "604",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "36 N.C. App. 601"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 339,
    "char_count": 9194,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.815,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.660452730400585e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9772222241528367
    },
    "sha256": "31a3fbd40983aed26720a597af84ce0c2f9a7ab1a967eb83455771f10b8f4e52",
    "simhash": "1:a04557c64eecb770",
    "word_count": 1540
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:02:41.791978+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Morris and Martin concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "BETTY C. STEELE v. DONALD HOWARD STEELE, JR."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nThis is a domestic case in which plaintiff wife sought divorce from bed and board, custody of the minor child, alimony, alimony pendente lite, and child support. Defendant husband excepted to the signing of the order awarding plaintiff custody of the minor child, child support and possession of the parties\u2019 dwelling. He argues that the trial court\u2019s order is not supported by sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law and he asks that this case be remanded to trial court for a further hearing. Plaintiff appellee concedes that the order was not supported by sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law and concurs in defendant\u2019s request for remand. We agree that the case should be remanded but, on remand, the trial court is directed to make findings of fact and conclusions of law based upon the 27 April 1977 hearing from which the trial court\u2019s original order was drawn.\nWe are aware of the difficulties experienced by trial courts in drafting orders in domestic cases. Many cases, both in this Court and in our Supreme Court, have dealt with the problem of insufficient findings of fact. These cases, however, are generally not helpful in explaining what is expected from district court orders. A cursory review of the controlling statutes may aid those attempting to draft such orders.\nIn an action for divorce from bed and board under G.S. 50-7, the trial court should make adequate findings of facts (i.e. specific acts of misconduct) to support the conclusion of law that the non-injured party has (1) abandoned the family; (2) maliciously turned the other out of doors; (3) endangered the life of the other by cruel or barbarous treatment; (4) offered such indignities to the person of the other as to render his or her condition intolerable; or (5) become an excessive user of alcohol or drugs so that the other\u2019s life is burdensome.\nIn suits for alimony, the order granting alimony must contain one of the ten grounds for alimony listed in G.S. 50-16.2 as a conclusion of law. Findings of fact to support that conclusion must, of course, be made, and usually the finding or findings of fact necessary will involve the actions of the supporting spouse. For example, to conclude that the supporting spouse has committed adultery under G.S. 50-16.2(1) requires the court to find as fact that the spouse is the supporting spouse (see G.S. 50-16.1(4)) and that he or she has committed specific adulterous acts with another party.\nSimilarly, in suits for alimony pendente lite, the grounds listed under G.S. 50-16.3 are conclusions of law necessary to justify an order granting such alimony. The court, therefore, must conclude as a matter of law that the party seeking alimony pendente lite (1) is the dependent spouse, G.S. 50-16.1(3), (2) is a party in an action for absolute divorce, divorce from bed and board, annulment, or alimony without divorce and, (3) from all the evidence presented pursuant to G. S. 50-16.8(f), (a) is entitled to the relief demanded in the action, and (b) is shown to lack sufficient means whereon to subsist during the prosecution or defense of the suit. Specific facts which support such a conclusion must be found. Hence, findings of fact as to estates and earnings are necessary to conclude that the spouse is dependent and lacks sufficient resources with which to subsist during the litigation. The trial court must also find that this spouse is plaintiff or defendant in one of the four listed actions and that the party has been heard orally, upon affidavit, verified pleading or other proof.\nIn the case of both alimony and alimony pendente lite, the order concerning amount must be supported by a conclusion of law that such amount is necessary under the circumstances. This conclusion of law, in turn, must be supported by specific findings of fact as to the estates, earnings, earning capacity, condition, and accustomed standard of living of the parties, as well as other relevant factors. See G.S. 50-16.5.\nBefore awarding custody of a child to a particular party, the trial court must conclude as a matter of law that the award of custody to that particular party \u201cwill best promote the interest and welfare of the child.\u201d G.S. 5043.2(a). Findings of fact as to the characteristics of the competing parties must be made to support the necessary conclusion of law. These findings may concern physical, mental, or financial fitness or any other factors brought out by the evidence and relevant to the issue of the welfare of the child.\nFinally, in orders of child support, the court should make findings of specific facts (e.g. incomes, estates) to support a conclusion as to the relative abilities of the parties to provide support. G.S. 50-13.4. To determine the amount of support necessary to meet the reasonable needs of the child for health, education and maintenance (which are conclusions of law), the court must make findings of specific facts as to what actual past expenditures have been. Where past expenditures are below subsistence, due regard, of course, must be given to meeting the reasonable needs of the child.\nThe case sub judice is remanded in order that findings of fact and conclusions of law necessary to support the order of 9 May 1977 can be made.\nVacated and remanded.\nJudges Morris and Martin concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ARNOLD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "M. Clark Parker for plaintiff appellee.",
      "Thomas M. Shuford, Jr., for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "BETTY C. STEELE v. DONALD HOWARD STEELE, JR.\nNo. 7727DC599\n(Filed 6 June 1978)\n1. Divorce and Alimony \u00a7 7\u2014 divorce from bed and board \u2014 necessary findings and conclusions\nIn an action for divorce from bed and board under G.S. 50-7, the trial court should make adequate findings of fact (ie. specific acts of misconduct) to support the conclusion of law that the non-injured party has (1) abandoned the family; (2) maliciously turned the other out of doors; (3) endangered the life of the other by cruel or barbarous treatment; (4) offered such indignities to the person of the other to render his or her condition intolerable; or (5) become an excessive user of alcohol or drugs so that the other\u2019s life is burdensome.\n2. Divorce and Alimony \u00a7 16\u2014 alimony order \u2014 necessary findings and conclusions\nAn order granting alimony must contain one of the ten grounds for alimony listed in G.S. 50-16.2 as a conclusion of law, and such conclusion must be supported by findings of fact, which findings usually will involve the actions of the supporting spouse.\n3. Divorce and Alimony \u00a7 18.10\u2014 alimony pendente lite \u2014 necessary findings and conclusions\nIn an order granting alimony pendente lite, the court must conclude as a matter of law that the party seeking alimony pendente lite (1) is the dependent spouse, (2) is a party in an action for absolute divorce, divorce from bed and board, annulment, or alimony without divorce, and (3) from all the evidence presented pursuant to G.S. 50-16.8(f), (a) is entitled to the relief demanded in the action, and (b) is shown to lack sufficient means whereon to subsist during the prosecution or defense of the suit. Hence, findings of fact as to estates and earnings are necessary to conclude that the spouse is dependent and lacks sufficient resources with which to subsist during the litigation, and the court must also find that this spouse is plaintiff or defendant in one of the four listed actions and that the party has been heard orally, upon affidavit, verified pleading or other proof.\n4. Divorce and Alimony \u00a7\u00a7 16, 18.10\u2014 alimony and alimony pendente lite \u2014 necessary findings and conclusions\nIn the case of both alimony and alimony pendente lite, the order concerning amount must be supported by a conclusion of law that such amount is necessary under the circumstances, and this conclusion of law must be supported by specific findings of fact as to estates, earnings, earning capacity, condition, accustomed standard of living of the parties, as well as other relevant factors. G.S. 50-16.5.\n5. Divorce and Alimony \u00a7 25.11\u2014 child custody order \u2014 necessary findings and conclusions\nAn order awarding child custody must contain a conclusion of law that the award of custody to that particular party \u201cwill best promote the interest and welfare of the child,\u201d G.S. 50-13.2(a), and such conclusion must be supported by findings of fact as to the characteristics of the competing parties, which findings may concern physical, mental, or financial fitness or any other factors brought out by the evidence and relevant to the issue of the welfare of the child.\n6. Divorce and Alimony \u00a7 24.9\u2014 child support order \u2014 necessary findings and conclusions\nIn orders of child support, the court should make findings of specific facts (e.g. incomes, estates) to support a conclusion as to the relative abilities of the parties to provide support, G.S. 50-13.4. To determine the amount of support necessary to meet the reasonable needs of the child for health, education and maintenance (which are conclusions of law), the court must make findings of specific facts as to what past expenditures have been.\nAppeal by defendant from Bulwinkle, Judge. Judgment entered 27 April 1977, in District Court, LINCOLN County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 24 April 1978.\nM. Clark Parker for plaintiff appellee.\nThomas M. Shuford, Jr., for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0601-01",
  "first_page_order": 629,
  "last_page_order": 632
}