Hassell v. Hassell
775 S.E.2d 695
N.C. Ct. App.2015Background
- Hassell and defendant married on Oct 23, 1999; Blaine born Mar 4, 2004; separated Jun 22, 2012; consent restraining order issued; custody, support, and equitable distribution disputes ensued.
- Trial court granted defendant temporary custody; Hassell received eight hours of supervised visitation; later permanent custody to defendant with visitation for Hassell.
- Bankruptcy filing by Hassell (Jul 2, 2013) led to relief from stay; bankruptcy court allowed distribution of marital property; state court finalized permanent orders in Apr 2014.
- Trial court classified Hassell's 401(k) as partially marital; alimony and child support set; mortgage payments and other post-separation issues addressed in the ED and support orders.
- Record on appeal included contested Rule 60 motions and various supplements; some documents were stricken for Rule 11(c) and confidentiality concerns.
- This appeal challenges the ED classification of the 401(k) as marital, seeks remand, and requests corrections to child support and alimony findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 401(k) is marital or separate property | Hassell proves separate-property basis; no marital contributions. | Property acquired during marriage should be marital; burden on Hassell to prove separateness. | 401(k) properly classified as Hassell's separate property; ED reversed and remanded for reclassification. |
| Clerical errors in child support and alimony findings | Income figure used for support and alimony includes overtime; clerical inconsistency. | Discrepancy permissible if supported by evidence; no error in computation. | Clerical error identified; remand to correct monthly income figure and recalibrate support/alimony. |
| Post-separation mortgage payments as divisible property; source of funds | Post-separation mortgage payments should be considered divisible; source of funds unclear. | Findings insufficient to classify payments; need source-of-funds findings. | Remand for findings detailing the source of funds used for post-separation mortgage payments. |
| Best interests and custody concededly supported by findings | Trial court erred by not sufficiently weighing Blaine’s welfare. | Judge’s exercise of discretion supported by evidence; credibility for court to resolve. | Custody affirmed; issue focuses on ED and support/maintenance remands rather than custody outcome. |
Key Cases Cited
- Peters v. Pennington, 210 N.C.App. 1 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011) (trial court findings conclusive if supported by competent evidence; de novo review of conclusions)
- Hardin v. KCS Int'l, Inc., 199 N.C.App. 687 (N.C. Ct. App. 2009) (sanctions and record-settlement standards; substantial/gross violations)
- Dogwood Dev. & Mgmt. Co. v. White Oak Transp. Co., 362 N.C. 191 (N.C. 2008) (violation level for sanctions; admissibility and record issues)
- State v. Horton, 200 N.C.App. 74 (N.C. Ct. App. 2009) (public records and appellate briefing privacy considerations)