# Rosario v. Rosario

> Court of Appeals of North Carolina · August 1, 2000 · 139 N.C. App. 258

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9848844

## Case

- **Full name:** ARLENE ROSARIO, Plaintiff v. LUIS M. ROSARIO, Defendant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of North Carolina
- **Decided:** August 1, 2000
- **Citations:** 139 N.C. App. 258; 533 S.E.2d 274; 2000 N.C. App. LEXIS 907
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Greene
- **Judges:** Edmunds, Smith, Greene
- **Cited by:** 10 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9848844

## Opinion text

Judge Greene
concurring.
I fully concur with the majority but write separately to emphasize that the findings of facts regarding the section 50-20(c) factors must do more than simply list the statutory factors considered by the trial court. The findings must reveal “due consideration of the evidence presented by the parties in support of the factors.” Daetwyler v. Daetwyler, 130 N.C. App. 246, 249 , 502 S.E.2d 662, 665 , disc. review denied in part, 349 N.C. 528 , 526 S.E.2d 174 (1998), aff’dper curiam in part, 350 N.C. 375 , 514 S.E.2d 89 (1999). This mandate does not require the trial court to make findings of the evidentiary facts, as findings of the ultimate facts considered by the trial court are sufficient. Id. at 249 n.l, 502 S.E.2d at 665 (providing, as an example, that evidentiary facts may include testimony from doctor regarding medical condition of plaintiff and plaintiffs medical bills; while ultimate facts may include that plaintiff is in poor health and has incurred particular expenses as a result).
In this case, for the reasons given by the majority, the judgment does not contain sufficient ultimate findings of fact in support of the factors listed in the judgment. Furthermore, the judgment is deficient because it suggests the trial court may have considered factors not included in its judgment. The trial court, in finding of fact number 11, listed six items it considered and noted they were among those it had considered. 1 The judgment must include ultimate findings on all the evidence presented in support of any factor.
The judgment of the trial court must, therefore, be reversed and remanded to the trial court for entry of a new equitable distribution order containing findings of the ultimate facts for each of the section 50-20(c) factors upon which the parties presented evidence.
. The trial court stated it had “considered all of the statutory factors raised by both parties, including” those specifically listed. (Emphasis added.)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9848844. Public record. Not legal advice.