<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly &#187; Trial Court’s Calculations</title>
	<atom:link href="http://nclawyersweekly.com/tag/trial-courts-calculations/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 20:13:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Domestic Relations &#8211; Equitable Distribution – Trial Court’s Calculations – Remand&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/05/10/domestic-relations-equitable-distribution-trial-courts-calculations-remand/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/05/10/domestic-relations-equitable-distribution-trial-courts-calculations-remand/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 May 2012 13:21:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Domestic Relations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals Unpublished]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[equitable distribution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Remand]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trial Court’s Calculations]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=62386</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Schweizer v. Patterson </em>The equitable distribution order appears (1) without explanation, to ignore the fact that certain assets were stipulated to be separate property and (2) to improperly consider passive increases to the value of separate property. Moreover, using the figures set out in the order, our calculations do not match those of the trial court.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/05/10/domestic-relations-equitable-distribution-trial-courts-calculations-remand/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
