{
  "id": 8521256,
  "name": "GAIL JOHNSON SMITH v. KEITH EUGENE SMITH",
  "name_abbreviation": "Smith v. Smith",
  "decision_date": "1988-03-15",
  "docket_number": "No. 8722DC745",
  "first_page": "232",
  "last_page": "242",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "89 N.C. App. 232"
    }
  ],
  "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": "346 S.E. 2d 274",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "276"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "82 N.C. App. 255",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8358621
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "259"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/82/0255-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "316 S.E. 2d 99",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1984,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "allocation to minor child of one-third total fixed expenses of custodial parent and the minor child not error where figure did not include any new spouse of custodial parent and court found expenses reasonable"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "68 N.C. App. 566",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8527661
      ],
      "year": 1984,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "allocation to minor child of one-third total fixed expenses of custodial parent and the minor child not error where figure did not include any new spouse of custodial parent and court found expenses reasonable"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/68/0566-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "300 S.E. 2d 908",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "allocation to minor child of one-third total living expenses of custodial parent, her current spouse, and the minor child is impermissible use of a mathematical formula to calculate the child's needs"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "61 N.C. App. 438",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8521613
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "allocation to minor child of one-third total living expenses of custodial parent, her current spouse, and the minor child is impermissible use of a mathematical formula to calculate the child's needs"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/61/0438-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "326 S.E. 2d 863",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "868"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "313 N.C. 63",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4719540
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "70"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/313/0063-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "167 S.E. 2d 782",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1969,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "784"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "5 N.C. App. 160",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8548588
      ],
      "year": 1969,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "163"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/5/0160-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "216 S.E. 2d 911",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "287 N.C. 664",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8564448,
        8564549,
        8564589,
        8564502,
        8564473
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/287/0664-01",
        "/nc/287/0664-04",
        "/nc/287/0664-05",
        "/nc/287/0664-03",
        "/nc/287/0664-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "214 S.E. 2d 288",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "292"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "25 N.C. App. 510",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8555070
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "516"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/25/0510-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "202 S.E. 2d 356",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "357"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "20 N.C. App. 641",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8554828
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "642"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/20/0641-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "252 S.E. 2d 235",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "236"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "40 N.C. App. 270",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8549928
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "271"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/40/0270-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "180 S.E. 2d 450",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "11 N.C. App. 133",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8553167
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/11/0133-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "332 S.E. 2d 724",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "727"
        },
        {
          "page": "728"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "76 N.C. App. 213",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8526939
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "216"
        },
        {
          "page": "218"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/76/0213-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "339 S.E. 2d 838",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "840"
        },
        {
          "page": "840"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "79 N.C. App. 627",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8522521
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "630"
        },
        {
          "page": "630"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/79/0627-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 845,
    "char_count": 23371,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.836,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.4420630248643524e-07,
      "percentile": 0.653329981786583
    },
    "sha256": "b437f613de09813b1e90a576c5533cdd2b59e255d95159b36b8e163f0a6b982c",
    "simhash": "1:b29cd662f402a9ce",
    "word_count": 3747
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:39:00.818604+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges COZORT and Greene concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "GAIL JOHNSON SMITH v. KEITH EUGENE SMITH"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PARKER, Judge.\nIn this appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred by making inadequate findings of fact to support its conclusions of law, that the trial court erred by making findings of fact not supported by sufficient evidence, that the trial court erred in placing undue weight upon the District Court Judges\u2019 Guidelines, and that the trial judge abused his discretion in ordering defendant to pay $1,400.00 per month in child support. For the reasons that follow, we find that defendant\u2019s assignments of error are without merit, and we affirm the order of the trial court.\nDefendant first argues that the trial court made inadequate findings of fact. Specifically, defendant argues that the court failed to make any affirmative findings regarding some of his asserted monthly expenses and failed to make any specific findings as to the actual past expenses of the two minor children.\nBefore ordering a modification of child support, the trial court must determine the present reasonable needs of the children. Such a determination must be based upon specific findings of fact as to actual past expenditures for the minor children, the present reasonable expenses of the minor children, and the parties\u2019 relative abilities to pay. Mullen v. Mullen, 79 N.C. App. 627, 630, 339 S.E. 2d 838, 840 (1986); Norton v. Norton, 76 N.C. App. 213, 216, 332 S.E. 2d 724, 727 (1985). Moreover, findings of fact regarding the parties\u2019 incomes, estates, and present reasonable expenses are necessary to determine their relative abilities to pay. Mullen v. Mullen, 79 N.C. App. at 630, 339 S.E. 2d at 840; Norton v. Norton, 76 N.C. App. at 218, 332 S.E. 2d at 728.\nIn its order, the court below found as fact:\nThat defendant has reasonable monthly expenses of $900.00 for rent, $299.00 for telephone, $69.65 for utilities, $400.85 for automobile payment, $250.00 for food, $104.08 for health insurance, $59.94 for automobile insurance, $100.00 for clothing, $100.00 for entertainment and $40.00 for child medical expenses, totalling $2,323.52 per month.\nDefendant contends that the court erred in failing to make affirmative findings as to some of his asserted monthly expenses, such as $500.00 per month for debt repayment to his father, $371.52 per month for meals while travelling as part of his job, $400.00 per month for transportation to visit his children in North Carolina, $115.14 per month for life insurance, $237.44 per month for \u201chotel marketing expenses,\u201d $43.65 per month for cable television, and $166.67 per month for the children\u2019s vacation.\nCredibility, contradictions, and discrepancies in the evidence are matters to be resolved by the trier of fact, here the trial judge, and the trier of fact may accept or reject the testimony of any witness. Laughter v. Lambert, 11 N.C. App. 133, 180 S.E. 2d 450 (1971). Moreover, in an action involving a determination of child support, the trial judge is not required to make detailed findings of fact upon every item of evidence offered at trial. The trial judge is required, however, to make material findings of fact that resolve the issues raised. In each case, the findings of fact must be sufficient to allow the appellate courts to determine upon what facts the trial judge predicated his judgment. Ebron v. Ebron, 40 N.C. App. 270, 271, 252 S.E. 2d 235, 236 (1979); Morgan v. Morgan, 20 N.C. App. 641, 642, 202 S.E. 2d 356, 357 (1974).\nIn the case before us, the trial court accepted as reasonable a monthly total of $2,323.52 in expenses for defendant. The trial judge must be given broad discretion in making factual determinations, for the trial judge has the opportunity to see the parties in person and to hear the witnesses. See Pruneau v. Sanders, 25 N.C. App. 510, 516, 214 S.E. 2d 288, 292, cert. denied, 287 N.C. 664, 216 S.E. 2d 911 (1975); Greer v. Greer, 5 N.C. App. 160, 163, 167 S.E. 2d 782, 784 (1969). The trial judge accepted as reasonable certain of defendant\u2019s asserted expenses and rejected as unreasonable the remainder.\nDefendant cites Plott v. Plott, 313 N.C. 63, 326 S.E. 2d 863 (1985), to support his contention. However, in Plott v. Plott, the trial judge had summarily drawn a conclusion as to the total monthly reasonable living expenses of the defendant, without \u201ca mathematical worksheet reflecting the amounts that were allowed or disallowed by the judge for reasonable living expenses.\u201d 313 N.C. at 70, 326 S.E. 2d at 868. The case before us is clearly distinguishable.\nThe court below also found as fact that the current reasonable expenses of plaintiff and the children are in excess of $3,000.00 per month and that approximately $1,850.00 of this amount is directly attributable to the minor children. In its finding, the court accepted as \u201creasonably necessary to maintain the health, welfare and enjoyment of the minor children\u201d two-thirds of the household expenses listed on plaintiff\u2019s financial affidavit as well as the total expenses listed on the affidavit that were directly attributable to the children. At trial, when asked how she arrived at the expenses she had listed, plaintiff testified that the figures were based primarily on actual expenditures, although there were some items for her children and for their home that she could not currently afford.\nDefendant contends that the court erred in not stating specifically the \u201cactual past expenses\u201d of the minor children. We disagree. The figures listed in plaintiff\u2019s financial affidavit and adopted by the court were figures based on actual past expenditures. Moreover, it was not improper for the court to include in its findings estimated expenses for certain items that plaintiff could not currently afford; simply because a custodial parent is unable to afford a certain item or expense is no reason to disqualify that item as a reasonable need of the child. Findings of fact as to actual past expenditures are meant to aid the trial court in determining the reasonable needs of the children, not to hamper the court\u2019s ability to assess the children\u2019s reasonable needs. Therefore, we find that the court made findings of fact sufficient to support its conclusions of law.\nDefendant next argues that certain findings of fact made by the trial judge are not supported by sufficient evidence. We will address each contested finding briefly.\nDefendant contends that the trial court\u2019s finding number four, that the reasonable monthly expenses of plaintiff and the parties\u2019 children are in excess of $3,000.00 per month and that two-thirds of the plaintiff\u2019s household expenses were attributable to the children, is based on speculation rather than on evidence in the record. This contention is without merit.\nPlaintiff\u2019s financial affidavit listed \u201cIndividual Needs,\u201d \u201cFixed Expenses,\u201d and \u201cDebt Payments\u201d totalling $2,969.08 per month. In addition, plaintiff listed approximately $8,000 in household repairs that were necessary at that time or would be necessary in the near future. This evidence alone is sufficient to support the trial judge\u2019s finding that the current reasonable needs of plaintiff and the children total $3,000.00 per month. Moreover, the trial court\u2019s allocation of two-thirds of plaintiff\u2019s household expenses to the minor children of the parties is not necessarily error. Included in plaintiff\u2019s listed household expenses are housing costs, electricity, water, telephone, fuel oil, and automobile expenses. While it is true that plaintiff would have to make expenditures for these items even if the parties\u2019 minor children were not residing with her, it would be a time-consuming if not impossible task for the trial court to determine with any degree of accuracy the portions of these expenses attributable to each of the three residents of plaintiff\u2019s house. Compare Evans v. Craddock, 61 N.C. App. 438, 300 S.E. 2d 908 (1983) (allocation to minor child of one-third total living expenses of custodial parent, her current spouse, and the minor child is impermissible use of a mathematical formula to calculate the child\u2019s needs) with Gibson v. Gibson, 68 N.C. App. 566, 316 S.E. 2d 99 (1984) (allocation to minor child of one-third total fixed expenses of custodial parent and the minor child not error where figure did not include any new spouse of custodial parent and court found expenses reasonable). We find no error in the trial court\u2019s finding of fact number four.\nDefendant also contends that there is insufficient evidence to support the court\u2019s finding of fact number five, that plaintiff obtained insurance for the minor children because of her fear that defendant would not maintain his health insurance on the minor children. This contention is also without merit.\nAt trial, plaintiff testified that although defendant was required to carry medical insurance covering the parties\u2019 children pursuant to the 1984 consent judgment and although to her knowledge he had thus far complied with that requirement, on occasion, defendant had refused to sign the insurance forms necessary to release the insurance. Plaintiff also testified on cross-examination that she obtained medical insurance because she was accumulating a number of medical bills for which she was primarily responsible, and she was worried that defendant might change jobs or that the insurance would not cover the expenses. This evidence sufficiently supports the court\u2019s finding number five.\nDefendant further argues that the trial court\u2019s finding number six is not supported by sufficient evidence. The trial court\u2019s finding number six states the following:\nThat the minor child, Keith, is hospitalized now at N. C. Memorial Hospital, and medical expenses will be incurred in connection with his hospitalisation in an amount from $10,000.00 to $25,000.00 and that, at the most, 80\u00b0/o of these expenses will be covered by insurance; that from this hospitalization, the minor child will return to the marital home with directives to maximize the child\u2019s learning ability, which directives will include a program that will make it necessary to obtain computer equipment, recording equipment, and typewriting equipment for him to use so as to allow him to do his studies through means other than having him write his lessons, and these will be costs in addition to the $156.00 per month needed for a tutor for the minor child.\nThis finding is supported by ample evidence in the record.\nOn direct examination, plaintiff testified that the parties\u2019 minor son, Keith, was currently at North Carolina Memorial Hospital and that Keith had been diagnosed as having emotional, behavioral, and scholastic problems caused by a learning disability, a hearing disorder, and an \u201cauditory processing disorder.\u201d Plaintiff stated that defendant\u2019s medical insurance \u201cshould pay\u201d eighty percent of the expenses incurred at Memorial Hospital. On cross-examination, plaintiff stated that the estimated bill for Keith\u2019s hospitalization was from $10,000.00 to $25,000.00. She also testified that on Keith\u2019s release from the hospital, he was to follow an \u201cIndividual Education Plan\u201d that would require computer equipment, including a printer, a tape recorder, and a tutor. Plaintiff stated that she had gotten estimates from professional tutoring services and that tutoring at the lowest available hourly rate would cost $156.00 per month.\nThis evidence fully supports the trial court\u2019s finding of fact number six.\nDefendant next contends that the court\u2019s findings of fact numbers seven, eight, and nine are not supported by sufficient evidence. In relevant part, the court below found as fact:\n7.That defendant has reasonable monthly expenses of $900.00 for rent, $299.00 for telephone, $69.65 for utilities, $400.85 for automobile payment, $250.00 for food, $104.08 for health insurance, $59.94 for automobile insurance, $100.00 for clothing, $100.00 for entertainment and $40.00 for child medical expenses, totalling $2,323.52 per month.\n8.That since June of 1984, defendant\u2019s estate has increased with regard to his partnership interest in Century Classic, Ltd. and his rental home in Charlotte, N. C.\n9.That plaintiffs estate had diminished and that her automobile is worn out and needs replacement, and that there has been an equity reduction in the ratio of savings accounts owned and debts owed from June of 1984 to the present time.\nAs discussed in the earlier portion of this opinion, the court\u2019s finding of fact number seven, as to defendant\u2019s reasonable monthly expenses, is based directly on defendant\u2019s own list of monthly expenditures. Therefore, it is clear that finding number seven was supported by evidence in the record. The trial court\u2019s findings of fact are conclusive on appeal if supported by competent evidence even though there is evidence to support contrary or additional findings of fact. Vuncannon v. Vuncannon, 82 N.C. App. 255, 259, 346 S.E. 2d 274, 276 (1986).\nLikewise, the court\u2019s finding of fact number eight is supported by sufficient evidence in the record. Defendant testified on direct examination that he became a partner in a Charlotte art gallery, Century Classics Limited, in 1985, and that in 1986, his reported income from the partnership was $4,504.71. Defendant also testified that he holds title to some property in Charlotte, which he purchased after he and plaintiff had signed the consent judgment in June of 1984. Defendant also stated that he receives $625.00 per month rental income from the Charlotte property. Defendant testified that his expenses relative to the property, however, are $795.59 per month causing him \u201ca negative cash flow of $170.59 per month.\u201d This evidence is sufficient to support the trial court\u2019s finding of fact number eight, even though there is evidence to support a different finding as to the rental property.\nAs to the trial court\u2019s finding of fact number nine, plaintiff testified on direct examination that her current automobile, a 1983 Toyota, was giving her \u201ca lot of problems\u201d and \u201ceven broke . . . down for a week in the last month.\u201d She stated that she felt that she needed to get another car because her car was not dependable, and she was especially concerned when she and the children were on the road at night. Plaintiff testified on redirect examination that in 1984, she had $500.00 in her savings account and that her debts totalled approximately $800.00. Plaintiff stated that at the time of trial, she had $750.00 in her savings account, but that her debts, including a \u201ccash reserve\u201d account that gives an automatic extension to her checking account, amounted to in excess of $3,500.00. Plaintiff also testified that she had had nearly $1,000.00 in an \u201cemergency\u201d savings account, but she was forced to withdraw $700.00 from that account for legal fees and for expenses connected with her son\u2019s stay in Chapel Hill. This evidence is sufficient to support the trial court\u2019s finding of fact number nine.\nDefendant next assigns as error finding of fact number ten which states that the trial court considered the Chief District Court Judges\u2019 Child Support Guidelines, providing that a noncustodial parent of two children should pay twenty-five percent of his gross income in child support. Defendant argues that the trial judge placed undue weight upon the guidelines and that this constitutes an abuse of discretion. This contention is entirely without merit.\nFirst, we cannot say that the trial court\u2019s consideration of Child Support Guidelines in making a determination of child support is error, so long as it is clear from the record that the court gave due regard to the factors required to be taken into consideration by statutes and by case law. See, e.g., Mullen v. Mullen, supra; Norton v. Norton, supra. Furthermore, defendant has not shown that the court has abused its discretion in considering such guidelines.\nTo support his argument, defendant points to the fact that the amount of support he has been ordered to pay is approximately twenty-two percent of defendant\u2019s gross monthly income and that \u201cthe court managed to come quite close to the 25% figure.\u201d Defendant also points out the following exchange at trial between defendant\u2019s attorney and the trial judge:\nMr. HOMESLEY: Judge, did I understand you to say $1,400 a month?\nThe Court: Yes, sir.\nMr. HOMESLEY: He [plaintiff\u2019s attorney] didn\u2019t even ask but for $1,300.\nTHE COURT: You want to figure out what 25 percent of $77,000 is?\nIn context, it is clear that the court\u2019s reference to twenty-five percent refers not to the Chief District Court Judges\u2019 Child Support Guidelines, but to plaintiff\u2019s motion in the cause for an increase in child support in which she prayed the court that she be awarded child support \u201cin the amount of 25% of [defendant\u2019s] gross income.\u201d This assignment of error is overruled.\nDefendant\u2019s final contention is that the trial judge abused his discretion in ordering defendant to increase his child support payments from $400.00 per month to $1,400.00 per month. We find no abuse of discretion and conclude from a careful review of the record that the trial court\u2019s findings of fact are supported by competent evidence in the record, that these findings of fact support the court\u2019s conclusions of law, and that the court\u2019s conclusions of law support its judgment.\nFor the reasons stated herein, the order of the trial court is\nAffirmed.\nJudges COZORT and Greene concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PARKER, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Harris, Pressly and Thomas, by Edwin A. Pressly and Genevieve M. Howard, for plaintiff-appellee.",
      "Homesley, Jones, Gaines and Fields, by T. C. Homesley, Jr., and Clifton W. Homesley, for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "GAIL JOHNSON SMITH v. KEITH EUGENE SMITH\nNo. 8722DC745\n(Filed 15 March 1988)\n1. Divorce and Alimony \u00a7 24.9\u2014 child support \u2014 affirmative findings as to defendant\u2019s expenses \u2014 no error\nThe trial court did not err in a child support case in making findings concerning defendant father\u2019s expenses by accepting as reasonable certain of defendant\u2019s asserted expenses and rejecting others and finding as reasonable a monthly total in expenses for defendant. The trial judge is not required to make detailed findings of fact upon every item of evidence offered at trial.\n2. Divorce and Alimony \u00a7 24.9\u2014 child support \u2014 expenses not currently affordable for children \u2014 allowable\nThe trial court did not err in an action for child support by not stating specifically the actual past expenses of the minor children or by including in its findings estimated expenses for certain items that plaintiff mother could not currently afford. Simply because the custodial parent is unable to afford a certain type of expense is no reason to disqualify that item as a reasonable need of the child.\n3. Divorce and Alimony \u00a7 24.9\u2014 child support \u2014 findings of reasonable monthly expenses \u2014 supported by evidence\nThe trial court\u2019s finding in a child support action that the reasonable monthly expenses of plaintiff and the children were in excess of $3,000 per month and that two-thirds of the household expenses were attributable to the children was supported by plaintiffs financial affidavit, which listed individual needs, fixed expenses, and debt payments totaling $2,969.08 per month and approximately $8,000 in household repairs that were necessary at that time or would be necessary in the near future; moreover, it would be a time-consuming if not impossible task for the trial court to determine with any degree of accuracy the portions of expenses such as housing costs, electricity, water, telephone, fuel oil, and automobile expenses attributable to each of the three residents of plaintiffs house.\n4. Divorce and Alimony \u00a7 24.9\u2014 child support \u2014 health insurance findings supported by evidence\nThere was sufficient evidence in a child support action to support the court\u2019s finding of fact that plaintiff obtained insurance for the minor children because of her fear that defendant would not maintain his health insurance on the minor children where plaintiff testified that defendant had on occasion refused to sign the insurance forms necessary to release the insurance he maintained for the children and that plaintiff was accumulating a number of medical bills for which she was primarily responsible and she was worried that defendant might change jobs or that the insurance would not cover the expenses.\n5. Divorce and Alimony \u00a7 24.9\u2014 child support \u2014 findings regarding child\u2019s medical expenses and educational needs \u2014supported by the evidence\nThe evidence in a child support action supported the court's finding that one of the minor children was incurring medical expenses for hospitalization in an amount between $10,000 and $25,000, that at most 80% of those expenses would be covered by insurance, that the child had been diagnosed as having emotional, behavioral and scholastic problems caused by a learning disability, a hearing disorder, and an \u201cauditory processing disorder,\u201d and that the child would be returned to the home with an individual education plan requiring computer equipment, a tape recorder, and a tutor.\n6. Divorce and Alimony \u00a7 24.9\u2014 child support \u2014 monthly expenses and estates \u2014 evidence sufficient\nThe evidence in a child support action was sufficient to support the court\u2019s findings regarding defendant\u2019s monthly expenses, changes in the parties\u2019 estates, and plaintiffs need for a new automobile.\n7. Divorce and Alimony \u00a7 24.1\u2014 child support \u2014 consideration of Chief District Court Judges\u2019 Child Support Guidelines \u2014 no abuse of discretion\nThe trial court did not abuse its discretion in a child support action by considering the Chief District Court Judges\u2019 Child Support Guidelines where the trial judge referred to twenty-five percent of defendant\u2019s gross income (the guideline amount) in an exchange with defendant\u2019s attorney, but plaintiff had prayed for an award of child support in the amount of twenty-five percent of defendant\u2019s gross income. Consideration of Child Support Guidelines in making a determination of child support is not error so long as it is clear from the record that the court gave due regard to the factors required to be taken into consideration by statutes and by case law.\nAPPEAL by defendant from Fuller (George T.j, Judge. Order entered 23 March 1987 in District Court, IREDELL County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 12 January 1988.\nThis is an appeal from an order modifying child support. The background is as follows: Plaintiff and defendant were married in 1973, and together had two children, Keith Eugene Smith, Jr., born 24 May 1975, and Keeley Lavinia Smith, born 7 May 1979. The parties separated in 1981, lived together for approximately one year, and then separated finally on 20 June 1983.\nOn 11 June 1984, the parties entered into a consent judgment with the following relevant provisions: that plaintiff would have primary custody of the parties\u2019 two minor children subject to visitation rights of defendant; that defendant would pay $400.00 per month in child support; that defendant would maintain medical insurance coverage on the two minor children; and that the parties each would pay half of all medical expenses not covered by insurance. The consent judgment also granted plaintiff divorce from bed and board from defendant.\nOn 14 January 1987, plaintiff filed a motion in the cause for an increase in child support and for other relief. After a hearing, the court entered an order increasing defendant\u2019s child support obligation to $1,400.00 per month. Defendant appeals.\nHarris, Pressly and Thomas, by Edwin A. Pressly and Genevieve M. Howard, for plaintiff-appellee.\nHomesley, Jones, Gaines and Fields, by T. C. Homesley, Jr., and Clifton W. Homesley, for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0232-01",
  "first_page_order": 260,
  "last_page_order": 270
}
