McCullough v. Johnson

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

McCullough v. Johnson

454 S.E.2d 697, 118 N.C. App. 171, 1995 N.C. App. LEXIS 89

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedMarch 7, 1995

Docket9426DC239

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 454 S.E.2d 697 (McCullough v. Johnson) 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

McCullough v. Johnson, 454 S.E.2d 697, 118 N.C. App. 171, 1995 N.C. App. LEXIS 89 (N.C. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

ARNOLD, Chief Judge.

Defendant argues that the trial judge’s sole finding related to retroactive child support is actually a conclusion of law, and, therefore, the order for retroactive child support is not supported by the findings.

*172 The judge’s only finding related specifically to retroactive child support was “6. A reasonable amount of past child support, for the period September 1, 1992, through December 31, 1992, is $500 per month.” Defendant is correct in his contention that this finding is a conclusion and is therefore insufficient to support the order for retroactive child support. Determining what is reasonable requires an exercise of judgment and is therefore a conclusion of law. Plott v. Plott, 313 N.C. 63, 326 S.E.2d 863 (1985).

Findings in support of an award of retroactive child support must include the actual expenditures made on behalf of the child between September and December 1992. See Savani v. Savani, 102 N.C. App. 496, 403 S.E.2d 900 (1991). The judge must also determine that the actual expenditures were reasonably necessary. Id. Because the order for retroactive child support is not supported by sufficient findings we reverse and remand for a new hearing at which the parties may present additional evidence if necessary. Addressing defendant’s lack-of-notice issue is unnecessary because defendant presumably will be properly served with notice of the new hearing.

Reversed and remanded.

Judges WYNN and MARTIN, JOHN C., concur.

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

ARNOLD, Chief Judge.

Defendant argues that the trial judge’s sole finding related to retroactive child support is actually a conclusion of law, and, therefore, the order for retroactive child support is not supported by the findings.

*172 The judge’s only finding related specifically to retroactive child support was “6. A reasonable amount of past child support, for the period September 1, 1992, through December 31, 1992, is $500 per month.” Defendant is correct in his contention that this finding is a conclusion and is therefore insufficient to support the order for retroactive child support. Determining what is reasonable requires an exercise of judgment and is therefore a conclusion of law. Plott v. Plott, 313 N.C. 63, 326 S.E.2d 863 (1985).

Findings in support of an award of retroactive child support must include the actual expenditures made on behalf of the child between September and December 1992. See Savani v. Savani, 102 N.C. App. 496, 403 S.E.2d 900 (1991). The judge must also determine that the actual expenditures were reasonably necessary. Id. Because the order for retroactive child support is not supported by sufficient findings we reverse and remand for a new hearing at which the parties may present additional evidence if necessary. Addressing defendant’s lack-of-notice issue is unnecessary because defendant presumably will be properly served with notice of the new hearing.

Reversed and remanded.

Judges WYNN and MARTIN, JOHN C., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

454 S.E.2d 697, 118 N.C. App. 171, 1995 N.C. App. LEXIS 89, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccullough-v-johnson-ncctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack