Quesinberry v. Quesinberry
210 N.C. App. 578
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Marriage from 1971 to 2008 with separation on Feb. 9, 2008; two children reached adulthood before separation.
- Wife filed a Complaint for Equitable Distribution in 2008 seeking more than a one-half share.
- Husband counterclaimed for post-separation support, alimony, unequal distribution, and other relief.
- Parties entered a Jan. 13, 2009 Pre-Trial Order stipulating all listed assets were marital and valued as of Feb. 9, 2008.
- After a five-day hearing, the court issued a June 18, 2009 equitable distribution judgment awarding wife 45% and husband 55%, including an award of husband’s interest in Quesinberry’s Garage to wife.
- Husband filed Rule 59 motion to vacate, denied Dec. 14, 2009; court later dismissed husband’s spousal support claims with prejudice (Feb. 15, 2010).
- Husband appealed on March 10, 2010 from multiple orders, including the ED judgment and the alimony-dismissal order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of appeal from the ED judgment | Husband timely under Rule 59 tolling; tolling ended before March 2010. | N/A | Timely appeal acknowledged due to pending post-separation claims and subsequent order. |
| Subject-matter jurisdiction to distribute assets without joining Quesinberry's Garage | Stipulation made assets marital; no need to join the corporation. | Joining the corporation required; not done. | Meritless; stipulation rendered joinder unnecessary. |
| Valuation date for marital property was properly identified | Date of separation (Feb. 9, 2008) was stipulated for all assets. | Judgment omits explicit reiteration of valuation date. | Date of separation valuation supported by the stipulation; no error shown. |
| Court’s treatment of Hartford Account value | Value should reflect date-of-separation amount claimed by husband. | Credibility of husband’s depreciation claim was for the trial court. | Court did not abuse discretion; used stipulated value. |
| Alimony/dismissal with prejudice | Husband pleaded sufficient facts to state a claim under Rule 8 for dependent/supporting spouse. | Pleading insufficient to establish grounds for alimony; Manning and Coleman guide dismissal. | Reversed as to dismissal; remanded for further alimony proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Manning v. Manning, 20 N.C.App. 149, 201 S.E.2d 46 (1973) (1973) (notice requirements for alimony pleadings under Rule 8)
- Coleman v. Coleman, 182 N.C.App. 25, 641 S.E.2d 332 (2007) (2007) (alimony pleading must notify grounds; reliance on Manning)
- Manning v. Manning, 20 N.C.App. 149, 201 S.E.2d 46 (1973) (1973) (notice requirements for alimony pleadings under Rule 8)
- Embler v. Embler, 143 N.C.App. 162, 545 S.E.2d 259 (2001) (2001) (interlocutory appeals when alimony claims pending)
- Patton v. Patton, 78 N.C.App. 247, 337 S.E.2d 607 (1985) (1985) (valuation and burden of showing error on appeal)
- Gregory v. Lynch, 271 N.C. 198, 155 S.E.2d 488 (1967) (1967) (valuation standards for property at separation)
- Grasty v. Grasty, 125 N.C.App. 736, 482 S.E.2d 752 (1997) (1997) (credibility determinations in ED cases; goodwill issues)
- Poore v. Poore, 75 N.C.App. 414, 331 S.E.2d 266 (1985) (1985) (need for expert valuation of goodwill)
- Offerman v. Offerman, 137 N.C.App. 289, 527 S.E.2d 684 (2000) (2000) (valuation of business assets; separation date)
- Veazey v. City of Durham, 231 N.C. 357, 57 S.E.2d 377 (1950) (1950) (definition of interlocutory appeal)