MARY H. MIZE,
Plaintiff,
v. Catawba County
No. 98 CVD 1056
DAVID B. MIZE,
Defendant.
Crowe & Davis, P.A., by H. Kent Crowe, for plaintiff-
appellant.
No brief filed for defendant-appellee.
EAGLES, Chief Judge.
Mary H. Mize (“plaintiff”) appeals from an equitable
distribution judgment requiring David B. Mize (“defendant”) to pay
plaintiff a distributive award. Plaintiff has one assignment of
error on appeal: that the trial court erred in its valuation of the
marital residence which resulted in an inappropriate division of
marital property. After careful review, we disagree.
The evidence tends to show the following. Plaintiff and
defendant were married on 1 January 1990. On 31 March 1998,
plaintiff filed a complaint seeking a divorce from bed and board
from the defendant. On 2 June 1998, defendant answered thecomplaint and filed a counterclaim seeking equitable distribution.
A hearing was held on the matter on 5 and 6 April 2001.
On 30 August 2001, the trial court entered a judgment of
equitable distribution. In the judgment, the trial court
determined that the fair market value of the parties' marital home
was “$90,000 at date of separation.” Based on its findings, the
court determined that plaintiff owed defendant $6,000 as a
distributive award. Plaintiff appeals.
Plaintiff's sole argument on appeal is that the trial court
improperly determined the value of the marital residence.
Plaintiff's expert witness Lori Barber testified regarding the
value of the marital home. As an expert in the field of
residential appraisal, Barber testified that the estimated market
value of the home at separation was $75,000. Defendant argued that
the value of the home was $90,000, based on a tax valuation which
placed the home's value at approximately $92,100. Before trial,
defendant had submitted an affidavit in which he stated that the
fair market value of the home was $90,000. Plaintiff argues that
the court disregarded Barber's testimony, which plaintiff contends
was the only competent evidence of fair market value of the marital
home. Plaintiff argues that defendant's testimony regarding the
home's value was not competent evidence. Plaintiff contends that
if defendant's improper testimony is disregarded, there is
insufficient evidence to support the trial court's valuation, and
the trial court overstated the value of the marital residence by
$15,000. We disagree. G.S. § 50-20 provides for the equitable distribution of
property upon divorce. “In making an equitable distribution, the
trial court must conduct a three-step analysis: (1) determining
which property is marital property; (2) calculating the net value
of the marital property -- which is the fair market value less any
encumbrance on the property; and, (3) distributing the property in
an equitable manner.” Hamby v. Hamby, 143 N.C. App. 635, 638, 547
S.E.2d 110, 112, disc. rev. denied, 354 N.C. 69, 553 S.E.2d 39
(2001)(citing Beightol v. Beightol, 90 N.C. App. 58, 63, 367 S.E.2d
347, 350, disc. rev. denied, 323 N.C. 171, 373 S.E.2d 104 (1988)).
Plaintiff contends that defendant's testimony about the
marital home's value was not competent evidence because it was
solely based on the tax valuation. However, defendant's affidavit
was also available for consideration by the trial court. Under the
“any competent evidence” standard, defendant's affidavit was
sufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding as to the
value of the marital home. Lawing v. Lawing, 81 N.C. App. 159,
164, 344 S.E.2d 100, 104 (1986) (citing Humphries v. City of
Jacksonville, 300 N.C. 186, 265 S.E.2d 189 (1980)). Accordingly,
we affirm.
Affirmed.
Judges McCULLOUGH and HUDSON concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***