Davis v. Davis

Decision Date28 April 1971
Docket NumberNo. 7126DC108,7126DC108
CourtNorth Carolina Court of Appeals
PartiesDonna Hicks DAVIS v. Robert Joseph DAVIS.

Bailey & Davis, by Gary A. Davis, Charlotte, for plaintiff-appellee.

Robertson & Brumley, by Richard H. Robertson, Charlotte, for defendant- appellant.

PARKER, Judge.

The evidence before the District Court not being brought forward in the record on appeal, the court's findings of fact properly made must be deemed supported by competent and sufficient evidence. Utilities Comm. v. Electric Membership Corp., 276 N.C. 108, 171 S.E.2d 406. At the outset, however, we observe that findings of fact Nos. 14 and 15 are not properly findings of fact at all but are merely recitations by the court as to what certain evidence tended to show. Where, as in this case, it becomes incumbent on the trial court to make findings of fact, the court should make its own determination as to what pertinent facts are actually established by the evidence, rather than merely reciting what the evidence may tend to show.

By appropriate exceptions and assignments of error, this appeal questions whether the findings of fact properly made support certain of the court's conclusions of law and the provisions of the judgment based thereon. Appellant raises no objection to those portions of the order awarding custody of the minor child to his wife, awarding her exclusive possession of their homeplace and its contents, and directing that he pay $25.00 per week for support of the child. In this connection, the court found as a fact that prior to entry of the order defendant had been paying to plaintiff the sum of $125.00 per month for support of the child, an amount larger than the court ordered him to pay for that purpose. Appellant does contend that the court's findings of fact do not support its conclusion that the plaintiff wife is entitled to an award of alimony Pendente lite, and he contends there was error in those portions of the order which directed him to pay $20.00 per week to his wife for that purpose and to pay the monthly premiums on the two life insurance policies in which the child is named as principal beneficiary.

The statute providing for an award of alimony Pendente lite is as follows:

' § 50--16.3. Grounds for alimony pendente lite.--(a) A dependent spouse who is a party to an action for absolute divorce, divorce from bed and board, annulment, or alimony without divorce, shall be entitled to an order for alimony pendente lite when:

'(1) It shall appear from all the evidence presented pursuant to G.S. 50--16.8(f), that such spouse is entitled to the relief demanded by such spouse in the action in which the application for alimony pendente lite is made, and

'(2) It shall appear that the dependent spouse has not sufficient means whereon to subsist during the prosecution or defense of the suit...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Quick v. Quick, 163A81
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 4 Mayo 1982
    ...to be given to evidence disclosed by the record on appeal. Knutton v. Cofield, 273 N.C. 355, 160 S.E.2d 29 (1968); Davis v. Davis, 11 N.C.App. 115, 180 S.E.2d 374 (1971). 300 N.C. at 712-13, 268 S.E.2d at We now apply these principles to the case before us. The only facts found by the trial......
  • Farmers Bank, Pilot Mountain v. Michael T. Brown Distributors, Inc.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 11 Enero 1983
    ...to be given to evidence disclosed by the record on appeal. Knutton v. Cofield, 273 N.C. 355, 160 S.E.2d 29 (1968); Davis v. Davis, 11 N.C.App. 115, 180 S.E.2d 374 (1971). 300 N.C. at 712-13, 268 S.E.2d at The dearth of factual findings is more pronounced when the conclusion of law is broken......
  • Mason v. Freeman, No. COA07-17 (N.C. App. 1/15/2008)
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 15 Enero 2008
    ...at 712, 268 S.E.2d at 189 (emphasis in original) (citing Knutton v. Cofield, 273 N.C. 355, 160 S.E.2d 29 (1968); Davis v. Davis, 11 N.C. App. 115, 180 S.E.2d 374 (1971)). Findings of fact numbers 10 and 14 are insufficient to support the trial court's use of Worksheet B to calculate the rel......
  • Carolina Mulching Co. v. Raleigh-Wilmington Investors II, LLC
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 7 Julio 2020
    ...court [ ] make its own determination as to what pertinent facts are actually established by the evidence[.]" Davis v. Davis , 11 N.C. App. 115, 117, 180 S.E.2d 374, 375 (1971). Where a trial court "merely recit[es] what the evidence may tend to show[,]" it fails to make the ultimate finding......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT