{
  "id": 8524682,
  "name": "CATHERINE DARRAH HOLDERNESS v. HOWARD HOLDERNESS, JR.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Holderness v. Holderness",
  "decision_date": "1988-08-02",
  "docket_number": "No. 8818DC109",
  "first_page": "118",
  "last_page": "121",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "91 N.C. App. 118"
    }
  ],
  "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": "328 S.E. 2d 47",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "50"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "74 N.C. App. 231",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8523873
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "236"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/74/0231-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "310 S.E. 2d 351",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "309 N.C. 822",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4763336,
        4764105,
        4762317,
        4760943,
        4767702
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/309/0822-05",
        "/nc/309/0822-02",
        "/nc/309/0822-01",
        "/nc/309/0822-04",
        "/nc/309/0822-03"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "306 S.E. 2d 540",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "64 N.C. App. 125",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8526303
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/64/0125-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "268 S.E. 2d 185",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "189"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "300 N.C. 708",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8564644
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "712"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/300/0708-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "326 S.E. 2d 863",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "313 N.C. 63",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4719540
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/313/0063-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "343 S.E. 2d 581",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "585"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "81 N.C. App. 71",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8521398
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/81/0071-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 362,
    "char_count": 6599,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.832,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2240919645422112e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6033307347262331
    },
    "sha256": "db95656cd838a194e00204432ef9f917c04c5ec4d73319ff6d4e5159d70ef24b",
    "simhash": "1:c7bd4477765e13f7",
    "word_count": 1082
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:33:36.579827+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges EAGLES and ORR concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "CATHERINE DARRAH HOLDERNESS v. HOWARD HOLDERNESS, JR."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "SMITH, Judge.\nDefendant brings forward several assignments of error and puts forth as his primary argument the trial court\u2019s failure to make adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law. He contends that the court\u2019s findings of fact are inadequate to support its conclusions as to the amount reasonably required for the support of the children, defendant\u2019s ability to pay that amount and plaintiffs ability to contribute to such support. We agree.\nIn an action to modify child support provisions of a separation agreement which has not previously been incorporated into an order of judgment of the court, the court is called upon, for the first time, to make a determination that the reasonable needs of the children are provided for in accordance with the abilities of those responsible for the children\u2019s support. Boyd v. Boyd, 81 N.C. App. 71, 343 S.E. 2d 581 (1986). \u201c[T]he moving party\u2019s only burden is to show the amount of support necessary to meet the reasonable needs of the children] at the time of the hearing.\u201d Id. at 76, 343 S.E. 2d at 585.\nTo comply with G.S. 50-13.4(c), the trial court is required to make findings of fact with respect to the factors listed in the statute. Boyd v. Boyd, supra; Plott v. Plott, 313 N.C. 63, 326 S.E. 2d 863 (1985). \u201cIt is not enough that there may be evidence in the record sufficient to support findings which could have been made.\u201d Coble v. Coble, 300 N.C. 708, 712, 268 S.E. 2d 185, 189 (1980). The trial court must make findings of fact on the parties\u2019 incomes, estates and present reasonable expenses in order to determine their relative ability to pay. Newman v. Newman, 64 N.C. App. 125, 306 S.E. 2d 540, disc. rev. denied, 309 N.C. 822, 310 S.E. 2d 351 (1983). Such findings are required for the appellate court to determine whether the trial court gave \u201cdue regard\u201d to the factors listed. Boyd v. Boyd, supra. See Atwell v. Atwell, 74 N.C. App. 231, 328 S.E. 2d 47 (1985).\nThe record in the present case contains evidence with respect to the income and estates of each of the parties. Notwithstanding this evidence, the trial court made no findings as to their reasonable expenses. Without findings relating to parties\u2019 reasonable expenses, there is no basis for a determination as to the parties\u2019 relative abilities to provide the support necessary to meet the reasonable needs of the children. Boyd v. Boyd, supra. The order in this case fails to meet these requirements.\nThe trial court\u2019s order is also deficient in its findings of fact regarding the children\u2019s reasonable needs. In plaintiffs affidavit, the itemized expenses for the children totalled $3,897.06 per month. In reviewing these expenses, the trial judge indicates in his order without making a specific finding that child care expenses and the proportion of fixed household expenses attributed to the children appeared to be high. However, he found the monthly needs of the children to be the exact amount set forth in plaintiffs affidavit, $3,897.06. This finding was made notwithstanding the fact that the order recites that plaintiffs counsel admitted that $600.00 miscellaneous expenses no longer existed. \u201cIn order to determine the reasonable needs of the child, the trial court must hear evidence and make findings of specific fact on the child\u2019s actual past expenditures and present reasonable expenses.\u201d Atwell v. Atwell, 74 N.C. App. at 236, 328 S.E. 2d at 50. The order contains no specific findings with respect to the actual past or present expenses incurred for the support of these children and is, therefore, insufficient to support the court\u2019s conclusion that the reasonable needs of the children amounted to $2,800.00 per month. Having held the order deficient, there is no need to address defendant\u2019s other assignments of error.\nFor the foregoing reasons, this case is remanded for findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with this opinion.\nVacated and remanded.\nJudges EAGLES and ORR concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "SMITH, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Luke Wright for plaintiff-appellee.",
      "Smith, Helms, Mulliss & Moore, by Ramona J. Cunningham and Jeri L. Whitfield, for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CATHERINE DARRAH HOLDERNESS v. HOWARD HOLDERNESS, JR.\nNo. 8818DC109\n(Filed 2 August 1988)\nDivorce and Alimony \u00a7 24.9\u2014 child support \u2014 insufficiency of findings\nThe trial court erred in modifying child support provisions of a separation agreement where the court made no findings as to the reasonable expenses of the parties and no specific findings with respect to the actual past or present expenses incurred for the support of the children; therefore, there was no basis for a determination as to the parties\u2019 relative abilities to provide child support and as to the amount required for the reasonable needs of the children to be met.\nAppeal by defendant from Lowe (W. Edmund), Judge. Order entered 12 November 1987 in District Court, Guilford County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 7 June 1988.\nPlaintiff and defendant were married to each other in 1977 and separated in December 1985. They have three minor children. According to the terms of a separation agreement executed by the parties at the time of their separation, joint custody was stipulated and defendant agreed to pay $1,800.00 per month child support. Defendant also agreed to provide health insurance for the children and take responsibility for all extraordinary uninsured medical and dental expenses. The parties were divorced on 12 December 1986.\nPlaintiff initiated this action for child support and custody on 13 August 1986. The complaint sought among other things an increase in child support over the amount set forth in the separation agreement. Plaintiff s claim for child support was heard on 22 October 1987. The trial court did not hear evidence but entered its order based on affidavits of income and expenses filed by the parties.\nDuring an in-chambers meeting with counsel for the parties, the trial judge commented that some of the expenses for the children, specifically child care expenses and the proportion of fixed household expenses attributed to the children, appeared to be high. There was no discussion or inquiry by the court regarding plaintiffs listed personal expenses. Other than an inquiry as to the colleges attended by defendant\u2019s children from a previous marriage, the court did not question defendant\u2019s listed expenses.\nOn 12 November 1987 an order was entered requiring defendant to pay (1) $2,800.00 per month to plaintiff for child support, an increase of $1,000.00 per month over the amount in the parties\u2019 agreement and (2) $1,000.00 in attorney\u2019s fees to plaintiffs attorney. Defendant appeals.\nLuke Wright for plaintiff-appellee.\nSmith, Helms, Mulliss & Moore, by Ramona J. Cunningham and Jeri L. Whitfield, for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0118-01",
  "first_page_order": 146,
  "last_page_order": 149
}