Veteran family law attorney Janet Reed comments on a recent North Carolina Court of Appeals case

JACKSONVILLE, N.C. - March 1, 2019 - PRLog -- Veteran family law attorney Janet Reed comments on a recent North Carolina Court of Appeals case on equitable distribution in a divorce case, Nordman v. Nordman.

Attorney Janet Reed, based in North Carolina, has published a new case comment on a divorce case with equitable distribution. The complete comment will be published on her Blog at janetreedesq.blogspot.com/

         Nordman v. Nordman is an unpublished case from the North Carolina Court of Appeals.  Although an unpublished opinion is not considered controlling legal authority, the case illustrates some important lessons for family law practitioners in a divorce case involving equitable distribution.

         The husband in Nordman appealed several rulings of the trial court pertaining to equitable distribution and finding of contempt.  Although the husband's appeal was dismissed in part, two assignments of error were granted and remanded to the trial court.

         The factual background of the couple involved were not controlling of the appellate issues and would be considered rather unremarkable.  The couple had ordinary assets for distribution and there were certain interlocutory orders in place to prevent dissipation of assets during the divorce case.  Husband violated certain terms of the interlocutory order and was held in contempt, which was upheld on appeal.

         Two issues that were reversed on appeal was the factual finding in support of unequal distribution and the valuation of the real property.  Specifically, Mr. Nordman argued that "the trial court erred in ordering an unequal distribution because it generally failed to make any express findings on those factors in Section 50-20(c) for which evidence was presented. As for the specific findings that Mr. Nordman identifies as absent, he points out that both parties introduced evidence concerning their health and ages—a factor relevant to an unequal distribution under Subsection 50-20(c)(3)—and that the trial court failed to make any findings at all concerning it."  The Court of Appeals agreed that the trial court failed to make the required findings under section 50-20(c) despite the fact that relevant evidence was presented.  The Court noted that "[t]he requirement to make such findings regarding the factors for which evidence is presented exists regardless whether the trial court ultimately decides to divide the property equally or unequally." (internal quotation omitted).  Therefore, this assignment of error was granted.

         "Mr. Nordman next argue[d] that the trial court lacked sufficient competent evidence to find that the fair market value of his Denver home at the time of distribution was $300,305."  The trial court excluded the Zillow report as incompetent evidence.  Then Mrs. Nordman testified that she did not have any real idea as to the value of real properties in the area where the property in question was located, admitting that she based her opinion on the excluded Zillow report.  Court of Appeals noted that although property owners are competent to testify as to the value of his or her property, if evidence affirmatively shows that the owner does not know the market value of the property, then the owner is not competent to render such an opinion.  Therefore, the Court of Appeals vacated the trial court's finding as to the valuation of the house.

         There are several interesting aspects of the Nordman case and some lessons for the family law practitioner.  First, the appellee could have sought a trial court's finding on health and age of the party and ensured that the finding was memorialized in the record.  It's hard to imagine that such a factual finding would have had material effect on the trial court's equitable distribution award.  Had such a finding been made, the assignment of error on that point would have been rejected.  Second, it would have been prudent for the appellee to prepare a more robust evidence on the valuation of real property.  Certainly, opinion from a qualified appraiser would have been sufficient evidence.  Absent that, the appellee had to be prepared with something more than mere opinion evidence from Mrs. Nordman, especially in light of the fact that she was not familiar with market value of the property in question.  At the end of the day, some small measure of prudence and prevention could have ensured that the appellee prevailed on appeal as well.

         The case is Nordman v. Nordman, No. COA18-405.

About Janet Pittman Reed

Janet P. Reed is an attorney in Jacksonville, North Carolina, and handles Family Law cases such as Divorce & Separation, Personal Injury, Traffic, Criminal Law, Driver's License Restoration Services, and Civil Litigation cases.

Website: https://janetreedlaw.com/
Attorney Profile: https://solomonlawguild.com/janet-p-reed