By his second, sixth, and eighteenth assignments of error, defendant contends the court erred in denying his motions for a directed verdict pursuant to G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 50 and in thereaf
*520
ter submitting the issue of abandonment to the jury. Wе disagree. We first note that we need not consider defendant’s motion for a directed verdict at the close of plaintiffs evidence, as defendant chose thereafter to present evidence in his favor.
See Hodges v. Hodges,
Despite this, defendant contends that evidencе that the spouse was spending little time with his family, that the spouse would come home late at night and leave when he got up in the morning, and that the spouse finally told the other that she “made him sick” and left the family home with all his personal belongings, was not sufficient to support a finding and conclusion of abandonment in
Holt v. Holt,
Defendant’s fourth, fifth, seventeenth, and eighteenth assignments of error relate to the сourt’s instructions to the jury. First, defendant argues that the court did not correctly explain the “law of abandonment.” This assignment of error is based upon a broadside exception to the charge, and such an exception does not comply with the dictates of Rule 10(b)(2) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
State v. Freeman,
We have reviewed defendant’s other assignments of errоr addressed to the trial on the issue of abandonment and find them to be without merit. In the trial on the issue of abandonment, we find no error.
Based on his ninth, thirteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth assignments of error, defendant argues that the order requiring defendant to pay plaintiff’s attorney’s fees in this action was “fatally defective” because the complaint did not allege “that the plaintiff did not have ‘sufficient means whereon to subsist during the prosecution of the suit and to defray the necessary expenses thereof.’” The question argued in defendant’s brief, however, is not raised by thе exceptions upon which these assignments of error are based. Assignment of Error No. 17 is based on exceptions to the judgment awarding custody of the minor children jointly to the parties, awarding plaintiff alimony and attorney’s fees, and requiring that defendant provide for the support of the minor children, while Assignment of Error No. 18 is based on an exception to the court’s denial of dеfendant’s motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, new trial, and relief from judgment. Such exceptions raise the sole question of whether the facts found by the court support the judgment. Clearly, the faсts found do support the conclusions made, and the conclusions in turn do support the court’s judgment. Assignments of Error Nos. 9 and 13 are based on exceptions to Findings of Fact Nos. 6 and 10. These exсeptions raise questions as to the sufficiency of the evidence to support those findings. We have carefully reviewed the record in this case, and find ample evidence to suрport each of the findings challenged by these exceptions. These assignments of error have no merit.
Defendant contends by his seventh, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth assignments of error that the trial judge failed to make sufficient findings with respect to the “reasonable needs of the defendant and the minor children in his custody,” that thе findings made by the trial judge do not support the conclusions drawn therefrom, and that the conclu *523 sions are not sufficient to support the judgment entered. The trial judge found as a fact that defеndant’s net annual income after taxes was “approximately $30,000 to $32,000.” From this net income, defendant has been ordered to pay the following: (1) $1,000 each month in alimony to plaintiff; (2) $150 each month for the support of Colette Marie Tan, in plaintiffs custody; (3) an undetermined amount for mortgage payments, taxes, and insurance on the home sequestered to plaintiff; and (4) medical expenses of plaintiff in an amount not fixed or known, and both past and future. While we realize there is evidence in the record as to the amount of mortgage payments to be paid on the home, the trial judge made no finding with respect to that amount. Furthermore, the trial judge made no finding as to the financial needs of defendant or the minor children in his custody, nor did he make а finding as to the actual amount defendant will have to pay from his net income as a result of this action. Without more definite findings on these matters, we are unable to determine whether the judgment is fair to all parties concerned. Moreover, the trial judge made a finding that plaintiffs monthly economic needs consisted of a home to live in, use of an automobile, medicаl expenses and $847 in cash, yet the trial judge provided plaintiff with the home and car, and ordered defendant to pay plaintiffs medical expenses and $1,000 each month in cash. It seems оbvious to us that the findings made by the trial judge are too meager to enable the reviewing court to determine whether the trial judge exercised proper discretion in deciding what defendаnt was to pay plaintiff, and that the findings which were made do not support the judgment. For these reasons, the portion of the judgment awarding alimony to plaintiff and support for Colette Marie Tan in her custody, must be vacated.
The result is: In that portion of the proceedings pertaining to the trial on the issue of abandonment, we find no error; those portions of the judgment declаring plaintiff to be a dependent spouse and defendant to be a supporting spouse, ordering defendant to pay attorney’s fees, and awarding custody of the minor children are affirmed; that portion of the judgment fixing the amount of alimony for plaintiff and support for the minor child, Colette Marie Tan, in her custody is vacated, and the proceeding is remanded to the District Court for a further hearing with respect to the amount of alimony for plaintiff and *524 support for Colette Marie Tan and to the ability of defendant to pay those amounts, more definitive findings with respect thereto, and a proper order based thereon.
No error in part; affirmed in part; vacated and remanded in part.