Domestic Relations – Equitable Distribution – Valuation – Stipulation – Husband’s Business – Good Will

Lane v. Lane (Lawyers Weekly No. 12-16-0182, 12 pp.) (Sanford L. Steelman Jr., J.) Appealed from Bertie County District Court. (Thomas R. J. Newbern, J.) N.C. App. Unpub. Click here for full-text opinion.

Holding: Even though the plaintiff-wife now contends that there was a second mortgage on the marital residence that was used to buy an automobile, the parties stipulated in the pretrial order that the fair market value of this vehicle was $6,800 and that it was to be distributed to the wife, but the parties specifically did not stipulate as to whether there was a lien on the vehicle. Where the parties entered into an unequivocal stipulation that the mortgage on the residence was “now paid and no liens on residence,” the wife is bound by her stipulation and cannot disavow it on appeal.

We affirm the equitable distribution order in part; however, we vacate the portion of the order which set the debt associated with a timeshare unit at $6,853.61 rather than the stipulated debt amount of $9,322.36. We remand for re-computation of the equitable distribution award using the correct figures.

The defendant-husband is a real estate broker. His testimony as to the value of two rental properties was competent evidence of the fair market value of the properties. Moreover, the parties stipulated at trial that their testimony as to fair market value would be considered as both date-of-separation and current fair market values. Competent evidence supports the trial court’s findings of fact as to the value of the rental properties.

The parties’ stipulation that their testimony be considered as date-of-separation and current fair market value was an evidentiary stipulation. Therefore, it was not required to be “duly executed and acknowledged in accordance with the provisions of G.S. 52-10 and 52-10.1” under G.S. § 52-20(d). We decline to hold that the requirements of § 52-20(d) extend to any aspect of an equitable distribution proceeding that might peripherally touch upon the distribution of marital property but does not directly deal with the actual distribution of marital property.

Even though the wife disagreed with the husband’s contention that the tangible personal property of his business represented the entire value of the business, the wife offered no expert testimony as to the value of the business at trial. The trial court did not err in failing to ex mero motu appoint an appraiser, especially in light of the wife’s representation in the pre-trial order that she would present such evidence at trial.

Affirmed in part, reversed and remanded in part.