Krupinski v. Forrest An amendment to the parties’ separation agreement required the plaintiff-husband to pay the defendant-wife $29,500 “upon her signing a quitclaim deed to him for her interest in the residence.”
Booe v. Booe In the arbitrator’s equitable distribution award, the sale of marital property was expedited in part because of the already substantial size of the debt owed on the home equity line of credit. The defendant-husband’s further increasing that debt was not consistent with the intent of the arbitrator’s award.
Hinkle v. Hinkle Where the plaintiff-wife sought an unequal division of marital property, and where both parties raised issues under G.S. § 50-20(c) and presented evidence as to these issues, the trial court should have made findings of fact about the § 50-20(c) issues.
In re I.K. Although the respondent-father once disciplined his teenage stepson with a bull whip, there is no evidence in the record to support the trial court’s conclusion that there is a reasonable probability he would use this method of discipline on his young daughter, “Ilka.” Respondent has attended all treatment, parenting classes, and mental health assessments ordered by the court; the evidence indicates he has no problems with anger or impulse control, and he now recognizes that using a bullwhip is not an appropriate form of discipline.
Smallwood v. Smallwood Even though the trial court made several of the same findings that supported a conclusion of cohabitation in Rehm v. Rehm, 104 N.C. App. 490, 409 S.E.2d 723 (1991), as a whole, the trial court’s findings here support its conclusion that the plaintiff-wife was not cohabiting with her boyfriend
Odugba v. Odugba Where, in many of its findings of fact, the trial court merely recites conflicting witness testimony on key issues without making its own determination, the trial court’s findings of fact do not support its award of sole legal and physical custody to the plaintiff-mother.
Bledsoe v. Bledsoe Disregarding those findings of fact which merely recite evidence, the trial court’s remaining findings (that the plaintiff-father attempted to enforce the terms of a 2009 custody order, that the father takes his son to his after-school practices, that the son is old enough to pursue appropriate activities of his own choosing, and that the father’s motives for enforcing his visitation rights are suspect) do not support a conclusion that a substantial change of circumstances affecting the minor child has occurred.
In re A.K.D. The parties’ attempted stipulation to a conclusion of law – that the respondent-father had willfully abandoned the children for six months within the meaning of G.S. § 7B-1111(a)(7) – was ineffective, especially since the father never stipulated that his failure to see the children was willful.
Woodring v. Woodring Where a June 14, 2010 custody order did not address the plaintiff-father’s ongoing visitation and did not explicitly address legal custody, it did not determine all the issues between the parties;
Congdon v. Congdon Where the plaintiff-wife presented evidence that she inherited the funds in two bank accounts from her grandfather and always maintained the funds in accounts held solely in her name, the wife’s evidence supported the trial court’s classification of the funds as the wife’s separate property