Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

87 N.C. App. 174

Murrow v. Murrow

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided September 15, 1987

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · decided 1987-09-15

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently September 2020

1 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Plaintiff contends the trial court erred in ruling that no oral evidence would be taken in this equitable distribution action and that only affidavits would be considered in determining the issues raised. We agree.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including T & R Properties, Inc. v. Wimberly

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1987-09-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

HEDRICK, Chief Judge.

¶1Plaintiff contends the trial court erred in ruling that no oral evidence would be taken in this equitable distribution action and that only affidavits would be considered in determining the issues raised. We agree.

¶2Rule 43(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

In all trials the testimony of witnesses shall be taken orally in open court, unless otherwise provided by these rules.

¶3Nowhere in the Rules of Civil Procedure does it provide otherwise for the taking of evidence in trials of claims for equitable distribution. The trial court may not by rule or otherwise deprive the parties in an equitable distribution trial of the opportunity to present oral testimony in open court. Obviously, the parties may waive their rights to cross examine or present oral testimony in open court in the trial of equitable distribution cases.

¶4The order entered 30 September 1986 must be vacated and the cause remanded for a new trial on the claim of equitable distribution.

¶5Vacated and remanded.

Judges ARNOLD and ORR concur.
/87/ncapp/174 · .json · Public domain