We noted that in the course of an equitable distribution proceeding, equitable interests may be recognized and wrested from the hands of the legal titleholder by the imposition of a constructive trust. We also noted that the facts supporting a constructive trust must be established by clear and convincing evidence. In this case, because the first equitable distribution order did not indicate whether the constructive trusts imposed by the trial judge were established by clear and convincing evidence, we remanded the case for the judge to reconsider the evidence based on that standard of proof. Following remand, the trial judge entered an amended equitable distribution order on 4 December 1996. The order reaffirmed his previous conclusions that certain items were marital property, and the amended order expressly stated that these conclusions were supported by clear and convincing evidence.
Defendants appeal from the amended order.
First, we summarily dispose of three assignments of error raised by Upchurch Sr. Two of these assignments pertain to the alleged fraudulent concealment of assets by plaintiff. In addition, Upchurch Sr. cites as error the trial judge's refusal to recuse himself from the case at defendants' request on 21 August 1996. The record shows no basis for defendants' motion and it was correctly denied. Defendants' next assignments of error pertain to the trial judge's findings that several assets held by Upchurch Jr. should be subjected to a constructive trust.