Court Opinion

ID: 9591190
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:02:53.329536+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:08.129488
License: Public Domain

JOHNSON, Judge.
At the time the order of equitable distribution was entered, the parties had not received an absolute divorce, nor had they received an absolute divorce at the time of oral argument, as counsel conceded in oral argument. G.S. 50-21(a) specifically provides:
Upon application of a party to an action for divorce, an equitable distribution of property shall follow a decree of absolute divorce. . . . The equitable distribution may not precede a decree of absolute divorce. (Emphasis added.)
Although the court had jurisdiction over the parties and their property, it was without authority to enter the order of equitable distribution preceding an absolute divorce in light of the explicit language of G.S. 50-21(a). The order of the trial court is a nullity and must be vacated.
Vacated.
Judges WHICHARD and Phillips concur.