Peltzer v. Peltzer, 222 N.C. App. 784

Background

Plaintiff filed for divorce and equitable distribution; trial court later entered an equitable distribution order after a bench trial.
Defendant answered and amended his equitable distribution claim; pretrial order limited issues and clarified valuations to be determined at trial.
Post-trial, the court valued marital property, ordered a $220,732 distributive award payable over 18 months secured by the marital residence, and granted a lien on that residence.
Defendant challenged the distribution as unequal, challenged the sufficiency of liquid assets to satisfy the award, and claimed errors in valuing the medical practice and considering post-separation payments.
On appeal, the court affirmed in part and remanded for clarification of a finding of fact concerning the medical-practice valuation and discount.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the distribution was an abuse of discretion	Peltzer argues the 55/45 split favored defendant and relied on proper 50-20(c) factors.	Peltzer contends the distribution was inequitable and inadequately reasoned, at times lacking explicit factor findings.	No abuse of discretion; several factors were addressed and the overall result supported by the findings.
Whether there were sufficient liquid assets to satisfy the distributive award	There were liquid assets via disposable income and equity in the marital residence to cover the award.	There is insufficient liquid asset evidence beyond the medical practice interests; remand for funding sources and tax effects.	Affirmed; sufficient liquid assets were shown to cover the distributive award; no remand needed for funding source.
Whether post-separation payments were properly considered	The court properly treated post-separation mortgage payments and maintenance as distributive factors.	The court failed to assign precise values to these payments or total mortgage payments.	Remains within permissible discretion; court properly considered and weighted post-separation payments as factors.
Whether the medical practice valuation and related tax consequences were properly addressed	The court adopted Snell's valuation and considered tax consequences as per 50-20(c)(11).	Valuation methodology flawed; discount not clearly applied; ignored potential tax consequences of sale.	Remanded for clarification on discount and valuation methodology; tax-consequence findings affirmed insofar as sale was unlikely.
Whether the order should be remanded for further findings or a new trial	No new trial; existing record supports the order.	There are numerous errors and missing or unclear findings warranting remand or a new trial.	Affirmed in part; remanded in part for clarification of the medical-practice valuation finding.

Key Cases Cited

Pegg v. Jones, 187 N.C. App. 355, 653 S.E.2d 229 (2007) (substantial evidence standard; findings binding if supported)
Pulliam v. Smith, 348 N.C. 616, 501 S.E.2d 898 (1998) (substantial evidence standard and review of distribution decisions)
Rosario v. Rosario, 139 N.C. App. 258, 533 S.E.2d 274 (2000) (need specific findings for §50-20(c) factors; blanket assertions insufficient)
Embler v. Embler, 159 N.C. App. 186, 582 S.E.2d 628 (2003) (require explicit addressing of factors; supportable findings)
Crowder v. Crowder, 147 N.C. App. 677, 556 S.E.2d 639 (2001) (tax consequences and timing of sale concerns in valuations)
Cochran v. Cochran, 198 N.C. App. 224, 679 S.E.2d 469 (2009) (tax consequences considered only for imminent/sale; not speculative)
Miller v. Miller, 97 N.C. App. 77, 387 S.E.2d 181 (1990) (post-separation payments as distributive factor)
Plummer v. Plummer, 198 N.C. App. 538, 680 S.E.2d 746 (2009) (maintenance of property as a factor under §50-20(c)(11a))
Squires v. Squires, 178 N.C. App. 251, 631 S.E.2d 156 (2006) (post-separation payments and distributional factors)
Romulus v. Romulus, 715 S.E.2d 308 (2011) (invited error concept in valuation context)