Patton v. Patton, 348 S.E.2d 593 (N.C. 1986). · Go Syfert
Search
Patton v. Patton, 348 S.E.2d 593 (N.C. 1986). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case · …he requirement of specific findings is no less applicable in an equitable distribution order involving a spouse's interest in a closely-held corporation. at p. 595 ✓
142 citation events (67 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Davis v. Davis (ncctapp, 2014-04-15)
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987 2006 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 37 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Davis v. Davis (2×) also: Cited as authority (quoted)
N.C. Ct. App. · 2014 · signal: see · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence high
he requirement of specific findings is no less applicable in an equitable distribution order involving a spouse's interest in a closely-held corporation.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bailey v. Bailey (2×)
N.C. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
The Supreme Court of North Carolina applied the Poore framework in Patton v. Patton, 318 N.C. 404, 407 (1986).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Cunningham v. Cunningham
N.C. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
See also Coble, 300 N.C. at 712 ; Patton v. Patton 318 N.C. 404, 406 (1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Brady v. Brady
N.C. Ct. App. · 2022 · confidence medium
“The purpose for the requirement of specific findings of fact that support the court’s conclusion of law is to permit the appellate court on review ‘to determine from the record whether the judgment-and the legal conclusions that underlie it-represent a correct application of the law.’” Patton v. Patton, 318 N.C. 404, 406 , 348 S.E.2d 593, 595 (1986) (quoting Coble v. Coble, 300 N.C. 708, 712 , 268 S.E.2d 185, 189 (1980)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Foxx v. Foxx
N.C. Ct. App. · 2022 · confidence medium
“The purpose for the requirement of specific findings of fact that support the court’s conclusion of law is to permit the appellate court on review ‘to determine from the record whether the judgment – and the legal conclusions that underlie it – represent a correct application of the law.’” Patton v. Patton, 318 N.C. 404, 406 , 348 S.E.2d 593, 595 (1986) (quoting Coble v. Coble, 300 N.C. 708, 712 , 268 S.E.2d 185, 189 (1980)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Brady v. Brady
N.C. Ct. App. · 2022 · confidence medium
“The purpose for the requirement of specific findings of fact that support the court’s conclusion of law is to permit the appellate court on review ‘to determine from the record whether the judgment-and the legal conclusions that underlie it-represent a correct application of the law.’” Patton v. Patton, 318 N.C. 404, 406 , 348 S.E.2d 593, 595 (1986) (quoting Coble v. Coble, 300 N.C. 708, 712 , 268 S.E.2d 185, 189 (1980)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stowe v. Stowe
N.C. Ct. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
Patton v. Patton, 318 N.C. 404, 406 , 348 S.E.2d 593, 595 (1986) (“the trial court should make specific findings regarding the value of a spouse’s professional practice and the existence and value of its goodwill, and should clearly indicate the evidence on which -7- STOWE V.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stowe v. Stowe
N.C. Ct. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
Patton v. Patton, 318 N.C. 404, 406 , 348 S.E.2d 593, 595 (1986) (“the trial court should make specific findings regarding the value of a spouse’s professional practice and the existence and value of its goodwill, and should clearly indicate the evidence on which -7- STOWE V.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Simon v. Simon
N.C. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
“The purpose for the requirement of specific findings of fact that support the court’s conclusion of law is to permit the appellate court on review “to determine from the record whether the judgment — and the legal conclusions that underlie it — represent a correct application of the law.” Patton v. Patton, 318 N.C. 404, 406 , 348 S.E.2d 593, 595 (1986) (citation and quotation omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Williamson v. Williamson
N.C. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
“The purpose for the requirement of specific findings of fact that support the court's conclusion of law is to permit the appellate court on review to determine from the record whether the judgment — and the legal conclusions that underlie it — represent a correct application of the law.” Patton v. Patton, 318 N.C. 404, 406 , 348 S.E.2d 593, 595 (1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Romulus v. Romulus
N.C. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
Although the trial court need not and should not recite all of the evidence, “[t]he purpose for the requirement of specific findings of fact that support the court’s conclusion of law is to permit the appellate court on review to determine from the record whether the judgment — and the legal conclusions that underlie it — represent a correct application of the law.” Patton v. Patton, 318 N.C. 404, 406 , 348 S.E.2d 593, 595 (1986) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Quesinberry v. Quesinberry
N.C. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
“The purpose for the requirement of specific findings of fact that support the court’s conclusion of law is to permit the appellate court on review to determine from the record whether the judgment — and the legal conclusions that underlie it — represent a correct application of the law.” Patton, 318 N.C. at 406 , 348 S.E.2d at 595 (internal quotation marks omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Plummer v. Plummer
N.C. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
However, the court’s findings of fact must be “sufficiently specific to allow appellate review.” Id. (citing Patton v. Patton, 318 N.C. 404, 406 , 348 S.E.2d 593, 595 (1986)). *544 The factors to be considered in determining that an unequal distribution is equitable are: (1) The income, property, and liabilities of each party at the time the division of property is to become effective. (2) Any obligation for support arising out of a prior marriage. (3) The duration of the marriage and the age and physical and mental health of both parties. (4) The need of a parent with custody of a child…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Snow v. Snow
N.C. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
"The purpose for the requirement of specific findings of fact that support the court's conclusion of law is to permit the appellate court on review to determine from the record whether the judgment — and the legal conclusions that underlie it — represent a correct application of the law." Patton v. Patton, 318 N.C. 404, 406 , 348 S.E.2d 593, 595 (1986) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stone v. Stone (2×)
N.C. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
"The purpose for the requirement of specific findings of fact that support the court's conclusion of law is to permit the appellate court on review `to determine from the record whether the judgment — and the legal conclusions that underlie it — represent a correct application of the law.'" Patton v. Patton, 318 N.C. 404, 406 , 348 S.E.2d 593, 595 (1986) (quoting Coble v. Coble, 300 N.C. 708, 712 , 268 S.E.2d 185, 189 (1980)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Robertson v. Robertson
N.C. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
Patton v. Patton, 318 N.C. 404, 406 , 348 S.E.2d 593, 595 (1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Urciolo v. Urciolo
N.C. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
Defendant contends that the trial court’s valuation of the motorcycle was erroneous because it was not a specific finding of value under the rationale of our Supreme Court’s decision in Patton v. Patton. 318 N.C. 404, 407 , 348 S.E.2d 593, 595 (1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Smith
N.C. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
Generally, “[t]here is no provision for appeal to the Court of Appeals as a matter of right from an interlocutory order entered in a criminal case[.]” State v. Henry, 318 N.C. 408, 409 , 348 S.E.2d 593, 593 (1986).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Rosario v. Rosario (8×) also: Cited "see"
N.C. Ct. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
Patton v. Patton, 318 N.C. 404, 405-06 , 348 S.E.2d 593, 594-95 (1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Daetwyler v. Daetwyler (2×)
N.C. Ct. App. · 1998 · confidence medium
App. at 117 , 479 S.E.2d at 243 , because such a general finding does not present enough information to allow an appellate court to determine whether evidence presented on each of the section 50-20(c) factors was duly considered by the trial court, see Patton v. Patton, 318 N.C. 404, 406 , 348 S.E.2d 593, 595 (1986) (“The purpose for the requirement of specific findings of fact that support the court’s conclusion of law is to permit the appellate court on review ‘to determine from the record whether the judgment — and the legal conclusions that underlie it — represent a correct appli…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sharp v. Sharp
N.C. Ct. App. · 1994 · confidence medium
“The purpose for the requirement of specific findings of fact that support the court’s conclusion of law is to permit the appellate court on review ‘to determine from the record whether the judgment — and the legal conclusions that underlie it — represent a correct application of the law.’ ” Patton v. Patton, 318 N.C. 404, 406 , 348 S.E.2d 593, 595 (1986) (citation omitted).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Smith v. Smith
N.C. · 1994 · confidence medium
Armstrong v. Armstrong, 322 N.C. 396, 405-06 , 368 S.E.2d 595, 600 (1988) (quoting Patton v. Patton, 318 N.C. 404, 406 , 348 S.E.2d 593, 595 (1986) (emphasis added).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Minter v. Minter
N.C. Ct. App. · 1993 · confidence medium
“The purpose for the requirement of specific findings of fact that support the court’s conclusion of law is to permit the appellate court on review to determine from the record whether the judgment — and the legal conclusions that underlie it — represent a correct application of the law.” Patton v. Patton, 318 N.C. 404, 406 , 348 S.E.2d 593, 595 (1986).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Barnes
N.C. Ct. App. · 1993 · confidence medium
“There is no provision for appeal to the Court of Appeals as a matter of right from an interlocutory order entered in a criminal case.” State v. Henry, 318 N.C. 408, 409 , 348 S.E.2d 593, 593 (1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Chandler v. Chandler
N.C. Ct. App. · 1992 · confidence medium
“The purpose for the requirement of specific findings of fact that support the court’s conclusions of law is to permit the appellate *72 court on review ‘to determine from the record whether the judgment — and the legal conclusions that underlie it — represent a correct application of the law.’ ” Patton v. Patton, 318 N.C. 404, 406 , 348 S.E.2d 593, 595 (1986) (quoting Coble v. Coble, 300 N.C. 708, 712 , 268 S.E.2d 185, 189 (1980)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Monroe
N.C. · 1991 · confidence medium
State v. Henry, 318 N.C. 408, 409 , 348 S.E.2d 593, 593 (1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fox v. Fox
N.C. Ct. App. · 1991 · confidence medium
“The purpose for the requirement of specific findings of fact that support the court’s conclusion of law *22 is to permit the appellate court on review ‘to determine from the record whether the judgment — and the legal conclusions that underlie it — represent a correct application of the law.’ ” Patton v. Patton, 318 N.C. 404, 406 , 348 S.E.2d 593, 595 (1986) (quoting Coble v. Coble, 300 N.C. 708, 712 , 268 S.E.2d 185, 189 (1980)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Monroe
N.C. Ct. App. · 1991 · confidence medium
Except as otherwise provided by statute, “[t]here is no provision for appeal to the Court of Appeals as a matter of right from an interlocutory order entered in a criminal case . . . .” State v. Henry, 318 N.C. 408, 409 , 348 S.E.2d 593, 593 (1986); Joseph, 92 N.C.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Armstrong v. Armstrong
N.C. · 1988 · confidence medium
“The purpose for the requirement of specific findings of fact that support the court’s conclusion of law is to permit the appellate court on review ‘to determine from the record whether the judgment — and the legal conclusions that underlie it — represent a correct application of the law.’ ” Patton v. Patton, 318 N.C. 404, 406 , 348 S.E. 2d 593, 595 (1986) (quoting Coble v. Coble, 300 N.C. 708, 712 , 268 S.E. 2d 185, 189 (1980)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Coleman v. Coleman
N.C. Ct. App. · 1988 · confidence medium
Patton v. Patton, 318 N.C. 404, 407 , 348 S.E. 2d 593, 595 (1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Martin v. Thornburg
unknown court · 1987 · confidence medium
The purpose of requiring that the trial judge make findings of fact is to enable the reviewing court to determine “from the record whether the judgment — and the legal conclusions that underlie it — represent a correct application of law.” Patton v. Patton, 318 N.C. 404, 406 , 348 S.E. 2d 593, 595 (1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Olivetti Corp. v. Ames Business Systems, Inc. (2×)
N.C. · 1987 · confidence medium
In his finding summarizing Perry’s computation of damages, the trial judge did say that Perry projected these profits “as an NBI dealer.” However, as we have said before, the purpose of the requirement that the trial judge make findings of fact is so that the reviewing court may determine “ ‘from the record whether the judgment — and the legal conclusions that underlie it — represent a correct application of the law.’ ” Patton v. Patton, 318 N.C. 404, 406 , 348 S.E. 2d 593, 595 (1986).
discussed Cited "see" Hinkle v. Hinkle (2×)
N.C. Ct. App. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See Patton v. Patton, 318 N.C. 404, 406 , 348 S.E.2d 593, 595 (1986). (“The purpose for the requirement of specific findings of fact that support the court’s conclusion of law is to permit the appellate court on review to determine from the record whether the judgment-and the legal conclusions that underlie it-represent a correct application of the law.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)).
examined Cited "see" MEHRIZI v. ROMERO-BAEZA (3×)
N.C. Ct. App. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Patton v. Patton, 318 N.C. 404 , 407, 348 S.E.2d 593 , 595 (1986) (holding that a finding of fact that which is "merely an enumeration of the factors considered by a trial court" is insufficient to support a judgment).
discussed Cited "see" Surles v. Surles (2×)
N.C. Ct. App. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See Patton v. Patton, 78 N.C.App. 247, 255 , 337 S.E.2d 607, 612 (1985), rev'd in part on other grounds, 318 N.C. 404 , 348 S.E.2d 593 (1986).
discussed Cited "see" Buncombe County Ex Rel. Blair v. Jackson (2×)
N.C. Ct. App. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Patton v. Patton, 318 N.C. 404, 406 , 348 S.E.2d 593, 595 (1986) (findings of fact are required for appellate court to judge whether the order reflects a correct application of the law). 8 .
discussed Cited "see" Edwards v. Edwards (2×)
N.C. Ct. App. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Patton v. Patton, 318 N.C. 404 , 348 S.E.2d 593 (1986). *15 Because we are not directed to any evidence in the record which supports the finding of a thirty year economic life, we remand to the trial court for clarification or recalculation.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Shirley Patton
v.
David E. Patton
50A86.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Oct 7, 1986.
348 S.E.2d 593
James B. Maxwell for plaintiff appellee. , Clayton, Myrick & McClanahan, by Robert D. McClanahan, and Robert W. Myrick for defendant appellant.
Parker.
Cited by 51 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 65%
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of North Caro… (1)
PARKER, Justice.

In this appeal from a judgment in equitable distribution of marital property under N.C.G.S. §§ 50-20, 50-21, ordering division of the marital property, defendant challenges the trial court’s finding of fact concerning the value of defendant’s interest in a closely-held corporation. The majority of the panel of the Court of Appeals held that the trial court’s finding of fact was sufficient to support its conclusion as to the value of defendant’s interest. For the reasons hereinafter stated, we hold that the trial court’s judgment in this respect is not supported by sufficient findings of fact; consequently, we reverse in part the decision of the Court of Appeals and remand the cause for further proceedings.

Plaintiff and defendant were married in 1959 and separated in 1981. A judgment of absolute divorce based on a one-year separation was entered on 1 December 1983. By judgment entered 28 August 1984, defendant was awarded his interest in Pateo, Inc. (Pateo), a closely-held corporation.

In its judgment of 28 August 1984, the trial court made the following finding of fact:

34. That in evaluating the defendant’s/husband’s share of Pateo, Inc., the Court has considered the estimate of the defendant himself as given in an insurance application approximately six months prior to the separation of the parties (plaintiffs exhibit 10), the book value of the business in 1980 through November, 1984, the relative ownerships of the stock in the company in 1980 through 1984 (it being noted that defendant is the sole (or 96°/o) stockholder of the company having purchased the interest of his brother with the company redeeming his stock by treasury stock), has considered the capitalization of earnings of the company, has considered the earning capacity of the company as demonstrated in the last four-to-five year period of time, the present economic outlook for the business and industry, the good will that has accumulated to the business through the hard work and com[*406] petent efforts of the defendant, and the financial position of Pateo, Inc., as demonstrated by its unaudited statements for 1980 through April 30, 1984. The value of the defendant’s interest in Pateo, after consideration of all these factors, at the relevant time for evaluation for equitable distribution in this matter was at least $85,000.

In providing for distribution of marital property, N.C.G.S. § 50-20(j) states, “[T]he court shall make written findings of fact that support the determination that marital property has been equitably divided.” In the recent case of Poore v. Poore, the Court of Appeals stated that in its order of distribution of marital property, the trial court “should make specific findings regarding the value of a spouse’s professional practice and the existence and value of its goodwill, and should clearly indicate the evidence on which its valuations are based, preferably noting the valuation method or methods on which it relied.” 75 N.C. App. 414, 422, 331 S.E. 2d 266, 272, disc. rev. denied, 314 N.C. 543, 335 S.E. 2d 316 (1985). See also, Weaver v. Weaver, 72 N.C. App. 409, 324 S.E. 2d 915 (1985) (valuation of a professional partnership interest). Certainly the requirement of specific findings is no less applicable in an equitable distribution order involving a spouse’s interest in a closely-held corporation.

The purpose for the requirement of specific findings of fact that support the court’s conclusion of law is to permit the appellate court on review “to determine from the record whether the judgment —and the legal conclusions that underlie it — represent a correct application of the law.” Coble v. Coble, 300 N.C. 708, 712, 268 S.E. 2d 185, 189 (1980). Furthermore, this requirement “is not designed to encourage ritualistic recitations by the trial court,” but “is designed to dispose of the issues raised by the pleadings and to allow the appellate courts to perform their proper function in the judicial system.” Montgomery v. Montgomery, 32 N.C. App. 154, 158, 231 S.E. 2d 26, 29 (1977).

We do not intend to imply, however, that the trial court should recite in detail the evidence presented at the hearing; rather the trial court should be guided by the same rules applicable to actions for alimony pendente lite, Peoples v. Peoples, 10 N.C. App. 402, 179 S.E. 2d 138 (1971), and to actions for child support, Plott v. Plott, 313 N.C. 63, 326 S.E. 2d 863 (1985), thus[*407] limiting the findings of fact to ultimate, rather than evidentiary, facts.

Applying these principles to the case before us, finding of fact No. 34 appears to be merely an enumeration of the factors considered by the trial court in determining the value of defendant’s interest in Pateo, lacking any indication of what value, if any, the trial court may have attributed to each of the enumerated factors. The trial court’s conclusion that the value of defendant’s interest in Pateo “was at least $85,000” is nebulous, if not meaningless. The finding of fact is not clear as to how much more than $85,000 the interest may be worth. Distributions of this nature require more precise findings and determinations of ultimate facts. Therefore, in our view, finding of fact No. 34 is too vague and conclusory to permit appellate review.

Since the order appealed from does not contain findings of fact sufficient to support the judgment, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed as to the sufficiency of finding of fact No. 34 and the cause is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further remand to the District Court, Durham County, for proceedings consistent with this decision.

Reversed in part and remanded.