Court Opinion

ID: 9579537
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:56:02.788082+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:34.762700
License: Public Domain

BIGGS, Judge,
concurring in part, dissenting in part.
While I agree with the majority that the trial court’s finding of fact and conclusions of law are sufficient to support its award of child support, I disagree that the findings and conclusions are sufficient to support the award of attorney’s fees.
As stated by the majority, N.C.G.S. § 50-13.6 requires that in child support actions there must be a finding of fact by the trial court “ ‘that the party ordered to furnish support has refused to provide support which is adequate under the circumstances existing at the time of the institution of the action or proceeding.’ ” Hudson v. Hudson, 299 N.C. 465, 472-73, 263 S.E.2d 719, 724 (1980) (quoting N.C.G.S. § 50-13.6). “A finding of fact supported by competent evidence must be made on this issue ... before attorney’s fees may be awarded in a support suit.” Id. Additionally, in Gibson v. Gibson, 68 N.C. App. 566, 575, 316 S.E.2d 99, 105 (1984), this Court held that the absence of a specific finding on this issue “compels us to vacate the award of attorney’s *445fees and remand this case for additional findings as required by G.S. [§] 50-13.6.”
The trial court, in the case sub judice, made no finding of fact that plaintiff refused to provide adequate support. Nor is there a finding by the trial court, as suggested by the majority, “that the amount plaintiff had been providing, prior to the hearing, was inadequate to support the children.” The order makes no reference to the amount previously paid by plaintiff but merely sets the amount of support based on the Child Support Guidelines. Moreover, there was evidence at trial that plaintiff was paying the child support pursuant to a temporary support order.
Accordingly, I would vacate the award of attorney’s fees and remand the case for additional findings.