Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

99 N.C. App. 61

392 S.E.2d 627

Witherow v. Witherow

This page is marked noindex.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · decided 1990-06-19

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1990-06-19

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably 210 N.C. App. 1 - Peters v. Pennington (2011), 171 N.C. App. 550 - Cunningham v. Cunningham (2005)

36 state decisions

140199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

*67Judge PHILLIPS

¶1concurring in part; dissenting in part.

¶2I concur in the majority opinion except for the part about the trial court’s finding of fact as to defendant’s gross monthly wages from employment being supported by evidence. While the evidence does show that $3,000 is the amount the family business pays defendant each month as wages the evidence, including that which he presented, also indicates without contradiction that his real compensation from the business is substantially more than that. The evidence shows without dispute that: The company enables him to be a member of a country club that has few, if any, members who earn only $3,000 a month; it has loaned him $48,576.16 in exchange for two interest bearing notes upon which no payment of either principal or interest has been made, though the first loan was in 1971 and the other in 1987. The stated purpose of the first loan (of $15,000) was to enable defendant to buy stock in the company; the second loan was to enable defendant to pay his share of the loss that was incurred in buying an airplane with three other people. When defendant’s living expenses are taken into account, buying stock for $15,000, losing $33,576.16 in the joint purchase of an airplane, and belonging to a country club cannot be reconciled with the finding that his monthly compensation from the company is only $3,000. That finding should be vacated also and one made as to his real monthly income from the company.

/99/ncapp/61 · .json · Public domain