Byrd v. Byrd
| Citation | 303 S.E.2d 205,62 N.C.App. 438 |
| Decision Date | 07 June 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 8218DC648,8218DC648 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US) |
| Parties | Roger D. BYRD v. Crystal R. BYRD. |
Hatfield, Hatfield & Kinlaw by Kathryn K. Hatfield, Greensboro, for plaintiff, appellant.
Smith, Patterson, Follin, Curtis, James & Harkavy by J. David James, Greensboro, for defendant, appellee.
Plaintiff assigns as error the award by the trial court of $750.00 per month in child support. Plaintiff contends that the award was based on findings of fact not supported by the evidence. Plaintiff argues that awards of child support must be based on appropriately detailed findings of fact. To this end, plaintiff contends the trial court's Finding of Fact No. 4 which states, "the needs of the minor children of the parties are set forth in the affidavit of Crystal R. Byrd, which was filed in this action," is not a legally sufficient finding upon which to base an award of child support.
Plaintiff's contention has two premises. First, that the trial court, in failing to enumerate specifically its findings as to the needs of the children, did not provide an adequate factual basis as to the amount of support required. Second, that the trial court's finding of fact as to the needs of the children is not supported by the evidence.
A trial court, in determining a proper amount to be awarded for the support of minor children is directed by statute to consider the "reasonable needs of the child for health, education and maintenance, having due regard to the estates, earnings, conditions, accustomed standard of living of the child and the parties, the child care and homemaker contributions of each party, and other facts of the particular case." N.C.Gen.Stat. Sec. 50-13.4(c). The Supreme Court in Coble v. Coble, 300 N.C. 708, 712, 268 S.E.2d 185, 189 (1980), said that an order for child support "must be based upon the interplay of the trial court's conclusions of law as to (1) the amount of support necessary to meet the reasonable needs of the child and (2) the relative ability of the parties to provide that amount." Coble further holds that where the trial court sits without a jury, the judge is required to make factual findings "specific enough to indicate to the appellate court that ... 'due regard' " was taken of the factors enumerated in the statute. Id.
With regard to what the findings of fact concerning the needs of the minor children must contain, there are no set guidelines. The appellate courts of this state require only that the findings be based on competent evidence as to what the needs of the children are, Hampton v. Hampton, 29 N.C.App. 342, 224 S.E.2d 197 (1976), and that such findings sustain the conclusion that the support payments ordered are in such amount as to meet the reasonable needs of the child. Montgomery v. Montgomery, 32 N.C.App. 154, 231 S.E.2d 26 (1977). The evidence must support the facts found by the trial court which in turn support the trial court's conclusions of law which in their turn provide a basis for the trial court's judgment. Each link in this chain of reasoning must appear in the trial court's order. Coble v. Coble, 300 N.C. 708, 268 S.E.2d 185 (1980).
In Steele v. Steele, 36 N.C.App. 601, 604, 244 S.E.2d 466, 468-469 (1978), this Court held that the trial court's conclusions as to the abilities of the parties to provide support must be supported by "findings of specific facts (e.g., incomes, estates)" and that conclusions as to the reasonable needs of the minor children must be supported by findings of specific facts as to actual past expenditures. Where past expenditures are below subsistence, due regard must be given to meeting the reasonable needs of the child.
In the present case, there was evidence in the form of an affidavit submitted by defendant that itemized the monthly financial needs of the three minor children. These needs amounted to $946.00. In her testimony, defendant indicated that these itemized amounts were in excess of actual past expenditures but that they reflected her needs. There was no evidence that the needs of the children were otherwise than specified in defendant's affidavit.
The trial court, in its order, made specific reference to the defendant's affidavit rather than setting forth the specific facts regarding the needs of the children. To have done otherwise would have amounted to a recitation of the uncontradicted evidence.
With respect to the other half of the child support equation, the relative abilities of the parties to pay, plaintiff excepts to and assigns as error the trial court's findings of fact regarding the respective incomes and estates of plaintiff and defendant. Plaintiff argues that these findings of fact were not supported by the evidence. While there is conflicting evidence on these points, the findings of fact are supported by evidence in the record introduced without objection, and are thus binding on appeal. Plaintiff's assignments of error amount to an attempt to reargue the evidence adduced at the hearing in the hope that this Court will substitute itself for the trial court and accept plaintiff's version of the evidence. This we cannot do. Beall v. Beall, 290 N.C. 669, 228 S.E.2d 407 (1976). "The trial court must itself determine what pertinent facts are actually established by the evidence before it, and it is not for an appellate court to determine de novo the weight and credibility to be given to evidence disclosed by the record on appeal." Coble v. Coble, 300 N.C. at 712-713, 268 S.E.2d at 189.
Based on these findings, the trial court concluded that plaintiff should be ordered to pay child support in the amount of $750.00 per month. Plaintiff argues that the trial court, in setting this amount, made no inquiries as to the reasonableness of the expenses itemized in defendant's affidavit and no finding as to the relative abilities of the parties to pay. With regard to the expenses of a party claiming child support, there is a requirement that the trial court be satisfied as to the reasonableness of the itemized expenses. Coble v. Coble, 300 N.C. 708, 268 S.E.2d 185 (1980). However, absent contrary indications in the record, there is no requirement that a specific conclusion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Smith
...record, there is no requirement that a specific conclusion as to the reasonableness of such expenses be made[.]" Byrd v. Byrd, 62 N.C.App. 438, 441, 303 S.E.2d 205, 208 (1983). Where there are no contrary indications in the record, "a lack of a specific conclusion as to reasonableness will ......
-
Jain v. Jain
...evidence of actual expenditures" where plaintiff testified in explanation of the figures in the affidavit); Byrd v. Byrd , 62 N.C. App. 438, 440-41, 303 S.E.2d 205, 207-08 (1983) (rejecting plaintiff's argument that findings in the child support order were not sufficiently specific where th......
-
Kolczak v. Johnson
...the "defendant's Answer and Counterclaim does not make the required allegations or pray for the appropriate relief[.]" 62 N.C. App. 438, 442-43, 303 S.E.2d 205, 209 (1983). But the defendant had offered evidence on attorney fees at the hearing, and thus this Court determined,[W]hen issues n......
-
Hill v. Hill
...responsibility for the credit card payments." (Citations, quotation marks, and brackets omitted) ); see also Byrd v. Byrd , 62 N.C. App. 438, 443, 303 S.E.2d 205, 209 (1983) ("[W]hen issues not raised in the pleadings are tried by the express or implied consent of the parties, North Carolin......