Faggart v. Faggart

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Faggart v. Faggart

189 S.E.2d 512, 15 N.C. App. 214, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 1868

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedJune 28, 1972

DocketNo. 7219DC309

StatusPublished

This text of 189 S.E.2d 512 (Faggart v. Faggart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Faggart v. Faggart, 189 S.E.2d 512, 15 N.C. App. 214, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 1868 (N.C. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

HEDRICK, Judge.

The defendant contends “the Court erred in awarding child support based on defendant’s capacity to earn rather than his actual earnings, there being no evidence and no findings of fact to the effect that defendant was acting dishonestly or in bad faith, nor any evidence tending to show that he was engaged in a business to which he was not properly adapted, nor was there any evidence tending to show that he was not making a good-faith effort to earn a reasonable income, and such award amounted to an abuse of discretion.” The defendant’s contention has no merit simply because the findings and [216]*216conclusions made by Judge Walker reveal that he was not basing his order on the defendant’s “capacity to earn.” Judge Walker was faced with the problem of equitably dividing defendant’s earnings so as to do the most good and the least harm to all parties concerned. As was said in Reavis v. Reavis, 271 N.C. 707, 157 S.E. 2d 374 (1967) :

“In these days of high taxes, inflation, and the extremely expensive cost of living, it is almost impossible for the average wage earner to support himself and his family. It can be done only by the most frugal and careful budgeting of the income.”

The findings that the defendant for the year 1970 had an adjusted gross income from his beauty salon of $4,260.00, that $100.00 a week was deducted from the business and distributed to the defendant and his present wife, and that he owns his home and two automobiles, are sufficient to support the order directing him to pay $50 a week to support his two teenaged children. The finding “that the defendant is an able-bodied man and is able to be gainfully employed in another occupation to supplement his income from the beauty salon and his activities in the field of gambling” does not vitiate the other findings or show that the Judge abused his discretion. The order appealed from is

Affirmed.

Judges Britt and Parker concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HEDRICK, Judge.

The defendant contends “the Court erred in awarding child support based on defendant’s capacity to earn rather than his actual earnings, there being no evidence and no findings of fact to the effect that defendant was acting dishonestly or in bad faith, nor any evidence tending to show that he was engaged in a business to which he was not properly adapted, nor was there any evidence tending to show that he was not making a good-faith effort to earn a reasonable income, and such award amounted to an abuse of discretion.” The defendant’s contention has no merit simply because the findings and [216]*216conclusions made by Judge Walker reveal that he was not basing his order on the defendant’s “capacity to earn.” Judge Walker was faced with the problem of equitably dividing defendant’s earnings so as to do the most good and the least harm to all parties concerned. As was said in Reavis v. Reavis, 271 N.C. 707, 157 S.E. 2d 374 (1967) :

“In these days of high taxes, inflation, and the extremely expensive cost of living, it is almost impossible for the average wage earner to support himself and his family. It can be done only by the most frugal and careful budgeting of the income.”

The findings that the defendant for the year 1970 had an adjusted gross income from his beauty salon of $4,260.00, that $100.00 a week was deducted from the business and distributed to the defendant and his present wife, and that he owns his home and two automobiles, are sufficient to support the order directing him to pay $50 a week to support his two teenaged children. The finding “that the defendant is an able-bodied man and is able to be gainfully employed in another occupation to supplement his income from the beauty salon and his activities in the field of gambling” does not vitiate the other findings or show that the Judge abused his discretion. The order appealed from is

Affirmed.

Judges Britt and Parker concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 S.E.2d 512, 15 N.C. App. 214, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 1868, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/faggart-v-faggart-ncctapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack