Groseclose v. Groseclose

896 S.E.2d 155

Jennifer GROSECLOSE, Plaintiff/Mother,

v.Alan GROSECLOSE, Defendant/Father.

No. COA22-950

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed December 5, 2023

Appeal by defendant from order entered 16 December 2021 by Judge Tracy H. Hewett in Mecklenburg County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 5 September 2023. Mecklenburg County, No. 15 CVD 17121

James, McElroy & Diehl, P.A., by Preston 0. Odom, III, Charlotte, Haley E. White, and Kristin J. Rempe, for plaintiff-appellee.

Wofford Burt, PLLC, by J. Huntington Wofford, and Rebecca B. Wofford, Charlotte, for defendant-appellant.

ZACHARY, Judge.

Defendant Alan Groseclose ("Father") appeals from the trial court’s order denying his motion for modification of permanent child support and permanent alimony, and granting Plaintiff Jennifer Groseclose’s ("Mother") motion for contempt. After careful review, we affirm in part and remand for additional findings of fact and conclusions of law.

I. Background

Mother and Father were married in 2000, separated in 2014, and divorced thereafter. One child was born of the marriage. On 3 December 2015, the trial court entered a temporary support order addressing postseparation support and child support (together, "temporary support"). The court ordered Father to pay:

$726.37 per month in ongoing temporary child support; … $11,848.52 in child support arrears at the rate of $300.00 per month; … $400.00 per month in ongoing postseparation support; … $800.00 in postseparation support arrears at the rate of $100.00 per month; and … $7,444.50 in attorney’s fees to [Mother]’s counsel at the rate of $200 per month.

Father filed his first motion to modify 20 days later, alleging that he suffered a substantial decrease in income and seeking a reduction in his temporary support obligations. Father was then late in paying his temporary support and attorney’s fees for several months of 2016, and failed to make any payments in October, November, or December of that year. Mother filed her first motion for contempt. On 3 January 2017, the trial court entered a permanent support order, denying Father’s motion to modify, granting Mother’s motion for contempt, and ordering Father to pay

$2,579 in temporary support arrears and $600 in attorney’s fees obligations; … $803.61 per month in permanent child support; … $1,000 per month in alimony until December 30, 2020; and … $18,000 in attorney’s fees at the rate of $225 per month until paid in full.

Father filed two more motions to modify his support obligations in 2017, while the parties’ equitable distribution action reached its conclusion. On 19 September 2017, the trial court entered its equitable distribution order, awarding Mother "a distributive award of $158,141.00 [payable by Father] at a rate of $1,000 per month until paid in full in order to achieve an equal distribution of the marital estate." The trial court made a finding of fact that Father "had the ability to pay such a distributive award."

On 3 December 2018, Father filed his fourth motion to modify, again alleging a substantial decrease in his income and requesting that the trial court reduce his child support and alimony obligations. On 18 June 2020, Mother filed another motion for contempt, alleging that Father had failed to pay his child support, alimony, attorney’s fees, and distributive award payments.

On 12 February and 3 March 2021, the parties’ motions came on for hearing in Mecklenburg County District Court. On 16 December 2021, the trial court entered an order denying Father’s motion to modify and granting Mother’s motion for contempt. The trial court also ordered Father to pay Mother an additional sum in reimbursement for her attorney’s fees. On 14 January 2022, Father timely filed notice of appeal.

II. Discussion

Father argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to modify his child support and alimony obligations and by granting Mother’s motion for contempt.

A. Modification of Child Support and Alimony

Father first contends that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion for modification "where the findings of fact supported changed circumstances[,]" namely, "an involuntary decrease in [Father’s] income" and Father’s persistent health concerns. We do not find Father’s arguments as to this issue to be persuasive. Father also argues that the trial court’s "findings of fact lacked detail to support the finding" of his actual monthly income. On this issue, we agree and remand for additional findings of fact.

1. Standard of Review and Applicable Legal Principles

[1] Generally, the amount of child support and alimony is "left to the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be disturbed on appeal unless there has been a manifest abuse of that discretion." Shirey v. Shirey, 267 N.C. App. 554, 559, 833 S.E.2d 820, 824 (2019) (citation omitted), disc. review denied, 376 N.C. 675, 853 S.E.2d 159 (2021). "A trial court abuses its discretion when it renders a decision that is manifestly unsupported by reason or one so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision." Id. at 560, 833 S.E.2d at 825 (cleaned up).

[2–5] "When the trial court sits without a jury, the standard of review on appeal is whether there was competent evidence to support the trial court’s findings of fact and whether its conclusions of law were proper in light of such facts." Id. at 559–60, 833 S.E.2d at 824-25 (citation omitted), "When the trial judge is authorized to find the facts, [its] findings, if supported by competent evidence, will not be disturbed on appeal despite the existence of evidence which would sustain contrary findings." Kelly v. Kelly, 228 N.C. App. 600, 605, 747 S.E.2d 268, 275 (2013) (citation omitted). While "the trial court need not recite all of the evidentiary facts[,]" it still "must find those material and ultimate facts from which it can be determined whether the findings are supported by the evidence and whether they support the conclusions of law reached." Id. at 606-07, 747 S.E.2d at 276 (citation omitted). We review de novo the trial court’s conclusions of law. Shirey, 267 N.C. App. at 560, 833 S.E.2d at 825.

[6] An order for child support or alimony may be modified "upon motion in the cause and a showing of changed circumstances by either party[.]" N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 50-13.7(a), -16.9(a) (2021). The movant bears the burden of showing a change of circumstances in order to modify either child support or alimony. Thomas v. Thomas, 134 N.C. App. 591, 592, 518 S.E.2d 513, 514 (1999) (child support); Britt v. Britt, 49 N.C. App. 463, 470, 271 S.E.2d 921, 926 (1980) (alimony).

[7,8] In both contexts, the change of circumstances must be substantial. For example, for the purposes of modifying alimony, this Court has made clear that

not any change of circumstances will be sufficient to order modification of an alimony award; rather, the phrase is used as a term of art to mean a substantial change in conditions, upon which the moving party bears the burden of proving that the present award is either inadequate or unduly burdensome.

Britt, 49 N.C. App. at 470, 271 S.E.2d at 926. Meanwhile, the "modification of a child support order involves a two-step process. The court must first determine a substantial change of circumstances has taken place; only then does it proceed to apply the [Child Support] Guidelines to calculate the applicable amount of support." McGee v. McGee, 118 N.C. App. 19, 26-27, 453 S.E.2d 531, 536 (emphasis added), disc. review denied, 340 N.C. 359, 458 S.E.2d 189 (1995).

2. The Trial Court’s Findings of Fact

In its order, the trial court made the following pertinent findings of fact regarding the lack of a substantial change of circumstances for the purposes of modifying child support and/or alimony:

23. The Court does not find that there has been a substantial change in circumstances such that permanent child support or alimony should be modified.

24. In the January 3, 2017 Permanent Support Order, the Court found as follows:

a. [Mother]’s income from her full-time job at Calvary Church is $2,594.73 gross per month and $1,974.45 net per month.

b. Two-thirds (2/3) of [Mother]’s shared family expenses should be attributed to [Mother]. Thus, [Mother]’s portion of the shared family expenses is $1,699.90 per month.

c. [Mother]’s monthly individual expenses are $1,493.83.

d. [Mother]’s total monthly needs and expenses are $3,193.73, plus her child support obligation of $305.89 pursuant to the North Carolina Child Support Guidelines.

e. [Mother] has a monthly shortfall in excess of $2,300.

f. [Father]’s testimony regarding his income was not credible.

g. [Father]’s income from employment is $6,067.90 gross per month.

h. [Father] received money from friends to help him pay his living expenses and attorney’s fees in the average amount of $750 per month. [Father] testified that this monetary support from friends was a "loan" or series of "loans." However, [Father] failed to present any evidence to support his contention that the additional monetary support were loans.

i. [Father]’s portion of the shared family expenses is $1,740.95 per month. [Father]’s individual expenses are $583.00 per month. [Father]’s total monthly needs and expenses are $2,323.95, plus his child support obligation of $803.61.

j. After mandatory deductions listed on his paystub, [Father]’s total monthly net income is $6,273.26. After subtracting his total monthly needs and expenses and his child support obligation, [Father] has a monthly surplus of $3,145.70.

25. The Permanent Support Order awarded [Mother] monthly alimony of $1,000 per month for a period of five (5) years or sixty (60) months.

26. [Father]’s current Fourth Motion to Modify was filed on December 3, 2018 after he became unemployed due to his employer in Virginia Beach, Virginia changing management or otherwise reorganizing such that the "last in was the first out" and [Father] was the "last in." The Court does not find...