Articles related to equitable distribution

Section 16.19 of the 2026 Appropriations Act establishes special procedures for the disposition of matters designated as complex family financial cases. Those special procedures include the creation of a new […]

In Wenninger v. Wenninger, decided May 7, 2024, the North Carolina Court of Appeals held that an equitable distribution judgment was void for lack of a necessary party because the […]

The North Carolina Court of Appeals recently voided an entire equitable distribution judgment because the trial court denied a motion to add as a party a revokable trust alleged to […]

In this earlier post, I wrote about whether the 10-year statute of limitations for initiating an action on a judgment bars the entry of a QDRO if the request for […]

Marital debt is debt incurred during the marriage by either or both spouses for the joint benefit of the parties. Huguelet v. Huguelet, 113 N.C. App. 533 (1994). The party […]

In Crago v. Crago, 268 NC App 154 (2019), the court of appeal rejected a request to apply the analytic approach to classify life insurance proceeds received by wife before […]

North Carolina S.L. 2019-172 (H 469) made substantial revisions to GS 50-20.1 governing the classification, valuation and distribution of pension, retirement and deferred compensation benefits. The changes apply to distributions made on or after October 1, 2019.

In the recent case of Green v. Green, (N.C. App., Oct. 3, 2017), the court of appeals held that a fee received by a lawyer as the result of the resolution of a case his firm took on a contingency basis before the lawyer separated from his wife was not marital or divisible property. The court based this decision on the fact that the lawyer did not receive the fee until after the date of separation and did not have a right to receive the fee on the date of separation because the agreement provided that no fee would be received if there was no recovery in the case. The appellate court reversed the trial court decision that a portion of the fee was ‘deferred compensation’ for work the husband performed before the date of separation. The trial court had classified this portion of the fee as divisible property pursuant to GS 50-20(b)(4)(b) which provides that divisible property includes property received “as the result of the efforts of either spouse during the marriage and before the date of separation.”

This decision by the court of appeals is significant because it is the first time the court of appeals actually reviewed a decision by a trial court interpreting this particular category of divisible property and because the holding of the appellate court seems to say this category is much more limited than the language of the statute indicates.

Immediately following the definition of marital property in G.S. 50-20(b)(1), the statute states “[i]t is presumed that all property acquired after the date of marriage and before the date of separation is marital property except property which is separate property under subdivision (2) of this subsection.” This presumption probably is the most important core principle of classification of property in North Carolina equitable distribution because it defines the burdens of proof.

An equitable distribution judgment was entered 11 years ago. The order states plaintiff is entitled to a percentage of defendant’s retirement pay when defendant begins to receive it. The judgment also states that plaintiff’s counsel will draft a QDRO. Now it is time for defendant to retire but no one ever drafted a QDRO. Is there a problem? Can the court enter one now?