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

plaintiffdefendantstatutehearingtrialpleadivorce
plaintiffdefendantstatutehearingtrialpleadivorce

Related Cases

Zixiang Li v. Kerry
View Case »
Guti v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Hosein v. Gonzales
View Case »
El Rescate Legal Services, Inc. v. Executive Office for Immigration Review
View Case »
Ngassam v. Chertoff
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

White v. White

Facts

The litigants in this action were married on September 8, 1951. In July 1980, the plaintiff husband abandoned the home of the parties. On November 23, 1981, he filed an action for divorce based on one year's separation. The defendant wife counter-claimed for equitable distribution of the marital property under N.C.G.S. 50-20. A hearing was held at the April 6, 1982 Session of District Court, Wake County on all issues arising from the pleadings. The trial court entered a judgment granting divorce absolute on April 6, 1982. In a separate order entered June 8, 1982, the trial court resolved the issues arising from the defendant wife's counterclaim for equitable distribution.

The litigants in this action were married on September 8, 1951. In July 1980, the plaintiff husband abandoned the home of the parties. On November 23, 1981, he filed an action for divorce based on one year's separation. The defendant wife counter-claimed for equitable distribution of the marital property under N.C.G.S. 50-20. A hearing was held at the April 6, 1982 Session of District Court, Wake County on all issues arising from the pleadings. The trial court entered a judgment granting divorce absolute on April 6, 1982. In a separate order entered June 8, 1982, the trial court resolved the issues arising from the defendant wife's counterclaim for equitable distribution.

Issue

The defendant wife contends that the trial court erred in ordering an equal division of the marital property. She argues that her contributions to the marital estate vastly exceeded those of her husband, and that she should be awarded a greater share of the property.

The defendant wife contends that the trial court erred in ordering an equal division of the marital property. She argues that her contributions to the marital estate vastly exceeded those of her husband, and that she should be awarded a greater share of the property.

Rule

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. If the court determines that an equal division is not equitable, the court shall divide the marital property equitably.

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. If the court determines that an equal division is not equitable, the court shall divide the marital property equitably.

Analysis

The trial court in the present case indicated that 'pursuant to G.S. 50-20, an equal division of the marital property of the parties is presumed appropriate.' The statute in fact does more. It does not create a 'presumption' in any of the senses that term has been used to express 'the common idea of assuming or inferring the existence of one fact from another fact or combination of facts.' Instead, the statute is a legislative enactment of public policy so strongly favoring the equal division of marital property that an equal division is made mandatory 'unless the court determines that an equal division is not equitable.'

The trial court in the present case indicated that 'pursuant to G.S. 50-20, an equal division of the marital property of the parties is presumed appropriate.' The statute in fact does more. It does not create a 'presumption' in any of the senses that term has been used to express 'the common idea of assuming or inferring the existence of one fact from another fact or combination of facts.' Instead, the statute is a legislative enactment of public policy so strongly favoring the equal division of marital property that an equal division is made mandatory 'unless the court determines that an equal division is not equitable.'

Conclusion

Turning to the facts of this case, we are unable to say that the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that each party was entitled to an equal share of the marital property. Therefore, we detect no abuse of discretion.

Turning to the facts of this case, we are unable to say that the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that each party was entitled to an equal share of the marital property. Therefore, we detect no abuse of discretion.

Who won?

The defendant wife contended that the trial court erred in ordering an equal division of the marital property. However, the court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that each party was entitled to an equal share of the marital property.

The defendant wife contended that the trial court erred in ordering an equal division of the marital property. However, the court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that each party was entitled to an equal share of the marital property.

You must be