Standard of Living is one of the factors specifically enumerated in North Carolina's Post separation support and Alimony statutes. The conclusion of commentator Sally Burnett Sharp concerning the 1995 statute relating to alimony is that the "previous standard of living" can no longer function as the "ceiling" for the amount of an alimony award. Step By Step: The Development of the Distributive Consequences in North Carolina, Sally Burnett Sharp, 76 N.C. L.Rev 2107. It had long been the rule that the previous standard of living formed, in effect, a "ceiling" with regard to spousal support. See Long v. Long, 71 N.C. App. 405, 4907, 322 S.E.2d 427, 429 (1984). Id. With the advent of the now sixteen (16) enumerated factors, the trial court must consider all factors, otherwise consideration of a single factor would contradict the purpose of the new statute and render all other factors nugatory. 76 N.C. L.Rev 2106
Recent Case Law
In Vadala the court reviewed Rhew, and Glass and found the trial court must be reversed and remanded for consideration of all relevant factors under N.C. Gen.Stat. § 50-16.3A(b), including the retirement savings as it pertained to the parties' accustomed standard of living pursuant to factor (8) of the § 50-16.3A(b). Vadala v. Vadala, 145 N.C.App 478, 550 S.E.2d 536 (2001).
In Barrett the court found that the trial court made explicit findings with respect to the parties' marital standard of living by reviewing the parties' expenditures during marriage, including their incomes, the type of home in which they lived, and the types of family vacations. The court further found that although the court did not make specific findings as to the amount of marital expenditures, it did list various bills that the defendant paid regularly prior to the parties' separation, including utilities, cable and television, telephone, newspaper, pest control, and yard service, concluding the findings were sufficient for an overall portrayal of the parties' accustomed standard of living. Barrett v. Barrett, 140 N.C.App 369, 372, 536 S.E.2d 642, 645 (2000).
"The determination of what constitutes the reasonable needs and expenses of a party in an alimony action is within the discretion of the trial judge, and he is not required to accept a face value the assertion of living expenses offered by the litigants themselves." Bryant v. Bryant, 139 N.C.App. 615, 618, 534 S.E.2d 230, 238 (2000) (quoting Whedon v. Whedon, 58 N.C.App. 524, 529, 294 E.E.2d 29, 32. disc. review denied, 306 N.C. 752, 295 S.E.2d 674 (1982). In Bryant the court found the trial court did not abuse its discretion by characterizing a marital pattern of savings as a reasonable expense; however, the Appeals Court did find abuse in that the trial court only considered the expense for one spouse and not the other.
Id. |
