Poston v. Poston

• Decision Date: 06 March 1979
• Docket Number: No. 7822DC446,7822DC446
• Citation: 252 S.E.2d 240,40 N.C.App. 210
• Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
• Parties: Edward Andrew POSTON v. Mary Elizabeth POSTON.

Page 240

252 S.E.2d 240

40 N.C.App. 210

Edward Andrew POSTON v. Mary Elizabeth POSTON.

No. 7822DC446.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

March 6, 1979.

Reginald L. Yates, Charlotte, for defendant appellant.

CARLTON, Judge.

Defendant's three assignments of error are all based on the contention that the trial judge made insufficient findings of fact in the 15 February 1978 order. We agree.

The judgment of the trial court found, in part, the following:

III. That after obtaining custody the parties could not agree upon a fair and reasonable amount of child support and that defendant once again filed a motion for support on the 29th day of November, 1977, alleging that she was in need of $800.00 per month as adequate support for the said child.

IV. That the plaintiff is an able-bodied man who is currently employed at Robinson Electric Company, Inc., in Charlotte, North Carolina, and is earning approximately $303.00 per week; that plaintiff has travel expenses from his home in Statesville to his place of employment in Charlotte, as well as his living expenses.

V. That the plaintiff negotiated in good faith as to the amount of money he could reasonably pay for the support of his minor child; that he has the ability to provide a reasonable amount of support for the maintenance of said child, he being primarily responsible and the defendant being secondarily responsible for adequate and reasonable support; that the defendant has remarried to one David VerMeulen, who earns a salary in excess of $25,000.00 per year and furnishes an automobile and extensive health insurance coverage for his family; that he provides an expensive and spacious residence in an excellent neighborhood on four acres of land for his family, together with a swimming pool and pasture area in the rear of the house where horses and ponies are kept, and the plaintiff doesn't have these types of luxuries where he resides part of the time with his paternal grandparents and he is not financially capable of paying $800.00 per month for the support of his minor child.

VI. That it is further found by the Court that the sum of $25.00 per week is a reasonable amount for the plaintiff to provide for the support and maintenance of said minor child and that he does not have the financial capabilities to provide the entire amount of support for the child, and especially not able to provide monies for feeding the child's horse and many of the other financial needs as set out by the defendant in her affidavit attached to the motion for support for the minor child.

To support an award of payment for support, the judgment of the trial court should contain findings of fact which sustain the conclusions of law that the support payments ordered are 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, and other facts of the particular case." G.S. 50-13.4(c), Montgomery v. Montgomery, 32 N.C.App. 154, 231 S.E.2d 26 (1977), Crosby v. Crosby, 272 N.C. 235, 158 S.E.2d 77 (1967).

In the order appealed from, the court concluded as a matter of law that

. . . defendant is entitled to a reasonable amount of support from the plaintiff for the use and benefit of the minor child: that said plaintiff has the ability to pay a reasonable amount of child support and the sum of twenty-five ($25.00) dollars per week is a reasonable sum for said plainti...