Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

trialdivorce
defendantappealtrial

Related Cases

Castano v. American Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734, 64 USLW 2753, 34 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1167
View Case »
Cook v. Cook, 208 Wis.2d 166, 560 N.W.2d 246
View Case »
American Dredging Co. v. Miller, 510 U.S. 443, 114 S.Ct. 981, 127 L.Ed.2d 285, 1994 A.M.C. 913, 62 USLW 4130
View Case »
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797, 105 S.Ct. 2965, 86 L.Ed.2d 628, 53 USLW 4879, 2 Fed.R.Serv.3d 797
View Case »
Lisle Mills v. Arkay Infants Wear, 90 F.Supp. 676, 85 U.S.P.Q. 160
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

White v. White, 312 N.C. 770, 324 S.E.2d 829

Facts

The parties were married in 1951, and the husband abandoned the home in 1980, filing for divorce in 1981. The wife counterclaimed for equitable distribution of marital property. The trial court found that both parties contributed to the marital estate, with the wife making significant nonfinancial contributions as a homemaker while the husband was employed. The court ultimately ordered an equal division of the marital property, which included a house, automobiles, securities, and savings accounts.

The parties, either individually or jointly, owned the following marital property: (1) a house, lot and greenhouse valued at $57,900; (2) automobiles valued at $2,500; (3) securities valued at $72,408.86; (4) banking and savings accounts in the amount of $1,478; and (5) furniture and household goods valued at $1,000.

Issue

Did the trial court err in ordering an equal division of the marital property under the Equitable Distribution Act?

The defendant wife contends that the trial court erred in ordering an equal division of the marital property.

Rule

Under N.C.G.S. 50–20, there is a presumption that an equal division of marital property is equitable unless the court determines otherwise based on specific factors.

N.C.G.S. 50–20(c) provides: There shall be an equal division by using net value of marital property unless the court determines that an equal division is not equitable.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by considering evidence related to the twelve factors outlined in N.C.G.S. 50–20(c). Although the wife argued that her contributions were greater, the court found that both parties had made significant contributions and that the trial court's decision to divide the property equally was supported by the evidence presented.

The trial court found as a fact that she had contributed nonfinancial services and wages to the marriage which exceeded in value the total fair market value of her interest in the jointly held property and her separately held property.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that there was no abuse of discretion in ordering an equal division of the marital property.

As modified herein, the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the order of the trial court is affirmed.

Who won?

The husband prevailed in the case as the court upheld the equal division of marital property, finding that the trial court's decision was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The trial court concluded that the contributions of the parties entitled each to an equal share of the marital property and ordered the property distributed accordingly.

You must be