MacDonald v. MacDonald

Summary

The North Carolina Court of Appeals reviewed a domestic-relations order concerning equitable distribution, child support, and sanctions. The court affirmed the equitable distribution judgment and sanctions award, but partially vacated the finding concerning the husband's gross income and remanded for entry of a new child-support order.

Holdings

1. The trial court's findings concerning the safe-deposit-box cash, insurance proceeds, Denison Cronk rental income, and diverted South Shore rental proceeds were supported by competent evidence. The Court of Appeals would not reweigh conflicting evidence or disturb the trial court's credibility determinations.
2. Postseparation rental income deposited into or diverted between marital business accounts constituted divisible property that was not accounted for merely by distributing the accounts themselves. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by distributing the net rental income and diverted proceeds to Husband or Wife as appropriate.
3. The parties were bound on appeal by their stipulations concerning classification, valuation, and distribution of property. Wife could not stipulate to property values and divisible values before trial and then argue on appeal that the trial court erred by adopting those figures.
4. Section 50-21(e) does not require an expert to testify pursuant to a subpoena before the court may impose sanctions for willful obstruction or unreasonable delay. The trial court also gave Wife sufficient notice that she could be required to bear the expert's expense if the expert uncovered substantial underreported income.
5. The findings that Husband received approximately $2,771 per month in Social Security and $2,285.08 per month in mandatory 401(k) withdrawals were unsupported by the record. The Court of Appeals vacated that portion of finding 35 and remanded for a new child-support order.

Questions Presented

1. Whether competent evidence supported the trial court's findings concerning safe-deposit-box contents, insurance proceeds, rental income, and diverted rental proceeds.
2. Whether the trial court properly distributed divisible property and debt, including stipulated property values, postseparation mortgage changes, HELOC payments, retirement-account value, and insurance proceeds.
3. Whether the trial court properly valued and distributed the Camaro.
4. Whether Wife's challenge to the distribution of Patio Playground goodwill was abandoned for failure to cite legal authority.
5. Whether sanctions under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50-21(e) required the expert to testify pursuant to a subpoena or required additional notice.
6. Whether competent evidence supported the trial court's findings regarding Husband's Social Security income and mandatory 401(k) withdrawals for purposes of child support.

Disposition

other