Jain v. Jain

Decision Date21 June 2022
Docket NumberCOA21-468
Citation874 S.E.2d 663
Parties Neelima JAIN, Plaintiff, v. Ashokkumar JAIN, AA Business Properties, LLC and India Foundation, and Kidzcare Pediatrics PC Kidz Care Plaza Condominium Owners Association, Inc. and Jain Properties, LLC and Jain Sterling Properties, LLC and 4A Properties, LLC and Pediatric Franchising Inc., Defendants.
CourtNorth Carolina Court of Appeals

The Armstrong Law Firm, P.A., Smithfield, by L. Lamar Armstrong, III, for Plaintiff-Appellee Neelima Jain.

Adams Burge & Boughman, by Harold Lee Boughman, Jr., for Defendant-Appellant Ashokkumar Jain.

COLLINS, Judge.

¶ 1 Defendant Ashokkumar Jain appeals from an order requiring him to pay $6,196.50 per month in child support to his former wife, Plaintiff Neelima Jain. Defendant argues that the trial court made unsupported findings of fact, failed to make sufficient findings of fact, and erred and abused its discretion in its award of child support. Because the trial court's findings of fact concerning the minor child's reasonable needs for shelter, clothing, electricity, and utilities were unsupported by competent evidence adduced at the child support hearing, we vacate the order and remand to the trial court.

I. Background

¶ 2 Plaintiff and Defendant married in October 1994, had two children during their marriage, and separated in March 2016. Plaintiff filed this action in May 2017 seeking child support, equitable distribution, alimony, post separation support ("PSS"), and attorneys’ fees.1 Plaintiff and Defendant's older child reached the age of majority before they separated but their younger child, the subject of the child support claim, reached the age of majority during the pendency of this appeal.

¶ 3 On 1 February 2018, the trial court entered an order obligating Defendant to pay Plaintiff $2,370.00 per month for temporary child support for their minor child and $4,000 per month for PSS.

¶ 4 On 20 January 2021, the parties appeared before the trial court to address numerous issues. Plaintiff initially requested, "Administratively, can we proceed with the child support first since it's by testimony?" The trial court answered affirmatively. Defendant noted that he had an oral motion to dismiss PSS review because there was no substantial change in circumstances. The trial court stated that it would hold Defendant's motion until after addressing child support and confirmed that Plaintiff was "going to move forward with the permanent child support" claim. Plaintiff answered yes, and the trial court proceeded to hear Plaintiff's claim for permanent child support. The Exhibits/Evidence Log reflects that the trial court received the following as exhibits during the child support hearing: Defendant's 2019 W-2, Defendant's paystub for the first two weeks of May 2020, statements of Defendant's 2019 K-1 distribution income, a statement of Plaintiff and Defendant's joint BB&T account, a statement acknowledging payment of a First Citizens Bank loan, an insurance policy for a car driven by the minor child, copies of passports for Defendant and the minor child, a Wells Fargo credit card statement, and documentation of travel and basketball expenses for the minor child. After hearing testimony and argument, the trial court stated that it would "have to take this under advisement."

¶ 5 The trial court next held a hearing on motions to modify Defendant's PSS payment.2 During this hearing, the trial court reminded the parties, "Generally we do the post-separation support by affidavits." The trial court and the parties referred to multiple financial affidavits including two executed by Plaintiff: a Post Separation Support Affidavit filed in September 2020 ("2020 PSS Affidavit") and another Post Separation Support Affidavit filed in July 2017 ("2017 PSS Affidavit"). The trial court marked the 2020 PSS Affidavit, 2017 PSS Affidavit, and other documents as "PSS Exhibits" in the Exhibits/Evidence Log under a separate heading from the exhibits received during the child support hearing. No live testimony was offered during the PSS hearing. At the conclusion of the PSS hearing, the trial court declined to modify Defendant's PSS payment. Immediately thereafter, the trial court rendered an oral ruling on child support. The trial court subsequently addressed issues concerning scheduling, discovery, expert witnesses, and interim equitable distribution.

¶ 6 On 22 April 2021, the trial court entered a Permanent Child Support Order and Interim Equitable Distribution Order ("Child Support Order"). The Child Support Order required Defendant to pay $6,196.50 per month for permanent child support, pay 70% of the minor child's healthcare costs not covered by insurance, provide private health insurance coverage for the minor child, and provide an insured vehicle for the benefit of the minor child. Defendant appealed.

II. Discussion

¶ 7 Defendant argues that the trial court made findings of fact unsupported by evidence properly before the trial court at the child support hearing; failed to make sufficiently specific findings concerning the minor child's reasonable needs; and erred and abused its discretion by ordering Defendant to pay $6,196.50 for child support.

¶ 8 Child support payments "shall be in such amount as to meet 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. § 50-13.4(c) (2021). Ordinarily, the trial court "shall determine the amount of child support payments by applying the presumptive guidelines[.]" Id. However, where "the parents’ combined adjusted gross income is more than $30,000 per month ($360,000 per year), the supporting parent's basic child support obligation cannot be determined by using the child support schedule." Determination of Support in Cases Involving High Combined Income, N.C. Child Support Guidelines (2021).

[W]here the parties’ income exceeds the level set by the Guidelines, the trial court's support order, on a case-by-case basis, 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. The determination of a child's needs is largely measured by the accustomed standard of living of the child.

Smith v. Smith , 247 N.C. App. 135, 145-46, 786 S.E.2d 12, 21 (2016) (quotation marks and citations omitted). "[O]ur appellate courts have long recognized that a child's reasonable needs are not limited to absolutely necessary items if the parents can afford to pay more to maintain the accustomed standard of living of the child." Id. at 146, 786 S.E.2d at 22 (citations omitted).

¶ 9 "[T]o determine the reasonable needs of the child, the trial court must hear evidence and make findings of specific fact on the child's actual past expenditures and present reasonable expenses." Jackson v. Jackson , 280 N.C. App. 325, 2021-NCCOA-614, ¶ 16, 868 S.E.2d 104 (quotation marks and citation omitted). "These findings must, of course, be based upon competent evidence[.]" Atwell v. Atwell , 74 N.C. App. 231, 234, 328 S.E.2d 47, 49 (1985). We review a trial court's child support order for an abuse of discretion. Jonna v. Yaramada , 273 N.C. App. 93, 122, 848 S.E.2d 33, 54 (2020).

¶ 10 Here, the trial court made the following pertinent findings of fact in support of its award of $6,196.50 in monthly child support:

12. ... Defendant's gross yearly income for 2019 is $1,945,664.60, giving Defendant a gross monthly income of $162,138.71.
13. The court has reviewed the financial affidavits, the prior order and findings, and the court further explained that it is taking judicial notice of the findings in prior orders in addition to the evidence presented.
14. The Court finds the minor child does have reasonable needs with regards to shelter, clothing, electricity and utilities.
15. The minor child also has reasonable needs for food, transportation, subscriptions to gym memberships and other recreational activities that the child was accustomed to when the parties had an intact marriage.
16. The minor child has reasonable expenses to travel to include trips to India at approximately $4,000.00 a ticket per year, trips to different countries of an average cost of $1,500.00 per year, and local trips within the United States at an average yearly cost of approximately $600.00.
17. The court finds the reasonable expenses for shelter for the minor child is approximately $1,850.00, and the minor child does reside with the Plaintiff mother, as well as the utilities expenses incurred in the home.
18. The minor child has a reasonable expense for a vehicle payment for a Nissan Altima. That the minor child previously had a vehicle, a 2020 Honda Civic, that Defendant was paying $434.48 per month, but that vehicle has since been sold. The current vehicle payment for the Altima is approximately $300.00.
19. There is a vehicle insurance premium of $342.80 per month, and that the Court concludes the premium is based on the minor child's maturity and lack of experience in driving.
20. That the minor child does have issues with his knee since he is an avid basketball player. The minor child has been referred to physical therapy for his knee, where there is [a] $70 co-pay for each visit. The minor child needs to go twice a week, but has been going one time per week.
21. The Court will find that the minor child has reasonable expenses that suit his accustomed standard of living of approximately $6,885.00 and therefore the court is going to order said amount.
22. The Court will find that Defendant has the means and ability to pay the child support based on the income that he earns. And the court will enter an order requiring the parties share in the minor child's reasonable expense.
....
24.
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Cash v. Cash
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • June 21, 2022
  • Gavia v. Gavia
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • July 5, 2023
    ... ... proceedings including a new evidentiary hearing if ... necessary." Jain v. Jain, 284 N.C.App. 69, 77, ... 874 S.E.2d 663, 669 (2022) (citation omitted) ...          2 ... The Trial Court's ... ...

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