Robinson v. Robinson
210 N.C. App. 319
N.C. Ct. App.2011Background
- Joel Robinson and Dawn Robinson married in 1985 and separated between Sept 2006 and Jan 2007; two children, Amber (b. 1989) and Anson (b. 1992).
- From separation until majority, Amber and Anson resided with Dawn; Anson’s custody/visitation addressed in 2008 mediated parenting agreement with primary residence with Dawn.
- Robinson filed for divorce, custody, and equitable distribution on Nov 6, 2007; Dawn counterclaimed for custody, support, alimony, fees, and distribution.
- A 2009 order after a December 2009 hearing distributed property, set visitation, awarded retroactive and prospective child support, alimony of $1,900/month, and attorney’s fees of $12,836.40.
- Robinson appealed raising six issues, challenging the trial court’s handling of equitable distribution, alimony, child support, retroactive amounts, visitation, and fees.
- Appellate court vacated or remanded most issues: incomplete classification/valuation of assets, alimony/child-support calculations, retroactive support findings, and attorney’s-fees allocation; visitation deemed moot due to Anson reaching majority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equitable distribution required classification and valuation | Robinson argues trial court failed to classify/value all marital property. | Robinson contends court did not properly identify/distribute assets and debts. | Order vacated; remanded for proper classification/value/distribution. |
| Alimony amount and fairness | Robinson claims court failed to assess ability to pay and misstated living standards. | Robinson argues alimony amount should reflect actual finances; court did consider factors. | Alimony award vacated; remanded for proper determination under §50-16.3A. |
| Retroactive child support | Robinson asserts court erred in retroactive amount and in considering Anson’s actual expenses. | Ms. Robinson maintains retroactive support reflects needs and guidelines. | Retroactive child support award reversed; remanded for proper findings of past expenditures. |
| Attorney's fees allocation | Robinson contends fees relate only to equitable distribution and other claims require apportionment. | Robinson disputes fee award as unsupported by statute apportionment. | Fees vacated; remanded for client-specific, fact-based award with proper attribution. |
| Visitation mootness | Robinson challenges the visitation order. | Visitation issues moot since Anson reached majority. | Issue deemed moot; no further review necessary. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hartsell v. Hartsell, 99 N.C.App. 380, 393 S.E.2d 570 (1990) (applies abuse-of-discretion standard in ED)
- Beightol v. Beightol, 90 N.C.App. 58, 367 S.E.2d 347 (1988) (discretionary ED must be supported by detailed findings)
- Dalgewicz v. Dalgewicz, 167 N.C.App. 412, 606 S.E.2d 164 (2004) (requirement to classify and value distributable property)
- Cunningham v. Cunningham, 171 N.C.App. 550, 615 S.E.2d 675 (2005) (three-step ED process; need explicit classifications)
- Carr v. Carr, 92 N.C.App. 378, 374 S.E.2d 426 (1988) (oral stipulations regarding property require contemporaneous inquiry and writing)
- Fink v. Fink, 120 N.C.App. 412, 462 S.E.2d 844 (1995) (alimony determinations must consider custodial and child-support nuances)
- Swain v. Swain, 179 N.C.App. 795, 635 S.E.2d 504 (2006) (valid considerations of actual ability to pay in alimony)
- Haddon v. Haddon, 42 N.C.App. 632, 257 S.E.2d 483 (1979) (evidence sufficiency for support awards when records incomplete)
- McGinnis Point Owners Ass'n v. Joyner, 135 N.C.App. 752, 522 S.E.2d 317 (1999) (attorney’s fees awarded only when statute authorizes)
- Patterson v. Patterson, 81 N.C.App. 255, 343 S.E.2d 595 (1986) (apportionment of fees in mixed actions requires clarity)