Sunshine v. Sunshine

903 S.E.2d 352

Judi Bader SUNSHINE, Plaintiff,

v.Ian SUNSHINE, Defendant.

No. COA23-559

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 4, 2024

Appeal by Plaintiff from orders entered 3 August and 23 November 2022 by Judge Rashad Hauter in Wake County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 7 February 2024. Wake County, No. 20 CVD 9574

Tharrington Smith, LLP, Raleigh, by Jeffrey R. Russell, Evan B. Horwitz, and Casey C. Fidler, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Jackson Family Law, by Jill Schnabel Jackson, for Defendant-Appellee.

COLLINS, Judge.

Plaintiff appeals from an order granting her alimony and a subsequent order denying her motion for a new trial. Plaintiff argues that the trial court made several errors resulting in an insufficient alimony award. For the reasons stated herein, we vacate the order granting alimony and remand for further findings of fact, conclusions of law supported by those findings, and a proper determination of the amount of alimony in accordance with those findings and conclusions.

I. Background

Judi Bader Sunshine ("Plaintiff’) and Ian Sunshine ("Defendant") were married on 3 June 2000 and separated on or about 7 March 2020. Two children were born of the marriage, both of whom had reached the age of majority before entry of the challenged alimony order.

Defendant has been in the packaging supply business for more than twenty-seven years and is the sole owner of Sun Pro Packaging, Inc. Plaintiff became a stay-at-home mother in 2001, around the time that the parties’ first child was born, and she did not return to work outside the home until 2016. She is employed part-time as a teaching assistant for special needs children at Quest Academy and she owns Wingin’ It, a business that sells butterfly farming supplies.

Plaintiff commenced this action on 31 August 2020 by filing a complaint for child custody, child support, postseparation support, alimony, equitable distribution, and attorney’s fees. Defendant filed an answer and counterclaims for child custody and equitable distribution. Plaintiff filed a reply to Defendant’s counterclaims and affirmative defenses.

A hearing on Plaintiff’s claims for postseparation support, child support, and attorney’s fees was held, and an order was entered on 11 January 2021 ("PSS and Child Support Order"). The trial court found that Defendant had reasonable monthly expenses of approximately $16,000 and a monthly net income of $38,000, and that Plaintiff had reasonable monthly expenses of $9,859 and a monthly gross income of $1,000. The trial court further found that Plaintiff is a dependent spouse who is actually substantially dependent upon Defendant for her maintenance and support and awarded her $6,859 per month in postseparation support for thirty- six months or until entry of an alimony order. The trial court awarded Plaintiff $2,000 per month in child support until the parties’ remaining minor child graduated from high school approximately five months after entry of the PSS and Child Support Order. The trial court further found that Plaintiff was entitled to reimbursement from Defendant for her attorney’s fees.

On 29 September 2021, the trial court entered a Consent Equitable Distribution Judgment and Order. Defendant was distributed the following property: the marital residence and the parties’ lake house with the mortgage notes upon each; three cars; a boat; two jet skis; investment accounts with a value of approximately $614,609; Defendant's IRA; 66% of profits from a deferred prefit plan and the tax liability thereon; Sun Pro Packaging, Inc.; and various items of personal property. Plaintiff was distributed the following: a cash award of $475,000 associated with the parties’ marital residence and lake house that Defendant received; two cars; investment accounts with a value of approximately $614,609; Plaintiff’s IRA; 34% of profits from Defendant's deferred profit plan; Wingin’ It; and various items of personal property

Plaintiff’s alimony claim was heard on 14 March 2022. On 8 April 2022, the trial court orally rendered preliminary findings of fact and announced that it was awarding Plaintiff alimony in the amount of $6,500 per month for 120 months. Counsel for the parties submitted supplemental written closing arguments and draft orders to the trial court after its oral ruling.

The written order ("Alimony Order") was entered on 3 August 2022. The trial court found that Defendant’s net monthly income was $25,473.58 and reasonable monthly living expenses were $11,788.39, leaving him a monthly surplus of $13,685.19. The trial court found that Plaintiff’s net monthly income was $3,419.84 and reasonable monthly living expenses were $5,932.68, leaving her a monthly shortfall of $2,512.84. The trial court awarded Plaintiff alimony in the amount of $2,513 for 120 months.

Plaintiff moved for a new trial or alteration of the Alimony Order. The trial court entered an order on 23 November 2022 denying Plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff timely filed a notice of appeal from the Alimony Order and the order denying her motion for a new trial.

II. Discussion

Plaintiff sets forth the following issues on appeal, arguing that the trial court erred by: (1) awarding an insufficient amount of alimony to Plaintiff; (2) failing to find and conclude that Defendant engaged in other marital misconduct; and (3) making certain findings of fact and conclusions of law. Plaintiff essentially argues that the trial court made certain factual and legal errors that led to an insufficient alimony award.

[1] We note that although Plaintiff noticed appeal from the trial court’s order denying her motion for a new trial, Plaintiff made no argument to this Court that that trial court erred by denying that motion. Any argument that the trial court erred by denying the motion for a new trial is deemed abandoned. See N.C. R. App. P. 28(a).

A. Standard of Review

[2–5] "As our statutes outline, alimony is comprised of two separate inquiries." Barrett v. Barrett, 140 N.C. App. 369, 371, 536 S.E.2d 642, 644 (2000). "The trial court’s first determination as to whether a party is entitled to alimony is reviewed de novo." Madar v. Madar, 275 N.C. App. 600, 604, 853 S.E.2d 916, 921 (2020) (italics omitted). "If the trial court determines that a party is entitled to alimony, then a second determination is made as to the amount of alimony to be awarded, which we review for abuse of discretion." Id. "The trial court’s decision constitutes an abuse of discretion where it ‘is manifestly unsupported by reason, or so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision[.]’ " Collins v. Collins, 243 N.C. App. 696, 700, 778 S.E.2d 854, 856 (2015) (citation omitted). "An error of law is by definition an abuse of discretion." Li v. Zhou, 252 N.C. App. 22, 26, 797 S.E.2d 520, 523 (2017) (citations omitted).

[6–8] This Court reviews a trial court’s order containing findings of fact "to determine if there is competent evidence to support the trial court’s findings of fact and whether the findings support the conclusions of law and ensuing judgment." Klein v. Klein, 290 N.C, App. 570, 577, 892 S.E.2d 894, 903 (2023) (quotation marks and citation omitted). "The trial court’s findings of fact are binding on appeal as long as competent evidence supports them, despite the existence of evidence to the contrary." Id. "[C]onclusions of law are reviewable de novo" on appeal. Smith v. Smith, 247 N.C. App. 166, 169, 785 S.E.2d 434, 437 (2016) (quotation marks and citations omitted). Furthermore, "[t]he labels ‘findings of fact’ and ‘conclusions of law employed by the trial court in a written order do not determine the nature of our review." Walsh v. Jones, 263 N.C. App. 582, 589, 824 S.E.2d 129, 134 (2019) (citation omitted). "If the trial court labels as a finding of fact what is in substance a conclusion of law, we review that ‘finding’ de novo." Id. (italics omitted).

B, Law Governing Alimony

"‘Alimony’ means an order for payment for the support and maintenance of a spouse or former spouse, periodically or in a lump sum, for a specified or for an indefinite term, ordered in an action for divorce … or in an action for alimony without divorce." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50-16.1A(1) (2022). "The court shall award alimony to the dependent spouse upon a finding that one spouse is a depen- dent spouse, that the other spouse is a supporting spouse, and that an award of alimony is equitable after considering all relevant factors, including those set out in [N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50-16.3A(b)]." Id. § 50-16.3A(a) (2022).

A dependent spouse is a spouse "who is actually substantially dependent upon the other spouse for his or her maintenance and support or is substantially in need of maintenance and support from the other spouse." Id. § 50-16.1A(2) (2022). A supporting spouse is a spouse "upon whom the other spouse is actually substantially dependent for maintenance and support or from whom such spouse is substantially in need of maintenance and support." Id. § 50-16.1A(5) (2022). If the court finds that the supporting spouse participated in an act of illicit sexual behavior during the marriage and prior to or on the date of separation and that the dependent spouse did not, then the court shall order that alimony be paid to the dependent spouse. Id. § 50-16.3A(a).

In determining the amount, duration, and manner of payment of alimony, the trial court shall consider all relevant factors, including the following statutory factors:

(1) The marital misconduct of either of the spouses …;

(2) The relative earnings and earning capacities of the spouses;

(3) The ages and the physical, mental, and emotional conditions of the spouses;

(4) The amount and sources of earned and unearned income of both spouses, including, but not limited to, earnings, dividends, and benefits such as medical, retirement, insurance, social security, or others;

(5) The duration of the marriage;

(6) The contribution by one spouse to the education, training, or...