Baldwin v. Baldwin ( 2014 )

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute
controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance
with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
NO. COA13-874
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
Filed: 18 February 2104
TASHA BALDWIN,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. Wake County
No. 11 CVD 6187
CLIFTON BALDWIN,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal by Defendant from order entered 19 February 2013 by
Judge Lori Christian in District Court, Wake County. Heard in
the Court of Appeals 7 January 2014.
No brief for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Stephanie J. Brown for Defendant-Appellant.
McGEE, Judge.
The sole issue in this appeal concerns the classification
of certain student loans for the purposes of equitable
distribution. Tasha Baldwin (“Plaintiff”) and Clifton Baldwin
(“Defendant”) were married on 6 November 2005, and separated on
2 April 2011. Plaintiff became a full-time divinity student in
January 2007, graduating with a master’s degree in divinity in
May 2010. In order to help finance her graduate education,
-2-
Plaintiff borrowed funds in her name from Sallie Mae (“the
student loans”) to pay for her college tuition and school books,
totaling approximately $60,000.00.
The hearing on equitable distribution was conducted on 26
November 2012. The trial court filed an equitable distribution
order on 19 February 2013. In the order, the trial court found,
inter alia, that the student loans constituted marital debt, and
ordered that Plaintiff and Defendant were each responsible for
paying one-half of the student loans. Defendant appeals.
In Defendant’s sole argument on appeal, he contends that
the trial court erred in classifying the student loans as
marital debt. We agree.
This Court has defined "marital debt" as
"one incurred during the marriage and before
the date of separation, by either spouse or
both spouses, for the joint benefit of the
parties." "The party who claims that any
debt is marital bears the burden of proof on
that issue." The party so claiming must
show "the value of the debt on the date of
separation and that it was 'incurred during
the marriage for the joint benefit of the
husband and wife.'"
Riggs v. Riggs, 124 N.C. App. 647, 652, 478 S.E.2d 211, 214
(1996) (citations omitted).
The student loans were procured by Plaintiff to assist her
in attending divinity school. There is no dispute that, while
Plaintiff was married to Defendant and before the date of
-3-
separation, she attended divinity school and obtained a master’s
degree therefrom. Plaintiff testified at the 26 November 2012
hearing that the money from the student loans went to pay for
tuition and school books. There was no evidence presented at
the hearing that any of this money benefitted Defendant in any
manner. Further, Plaintiff testified that the master’s degree
had not assisted her in obtaining employment, or in earning more
in wages than she otherwise could have earned. Plaintiff failed
in her burden of showing that the student loans jointly
benefitted Plaintiff and Defendant, or that they in fact
benefitted Defendant in any manner.
The trial court found “that there was an agreement for
. . . Plaintiff to go to school, that the debt for school
occurred during the marriage and therefore this school loan is a
marital debt.” However, without evidence and a finding that
Defendant benefitted from the student loans, they cannot be
classified as marital. It was Plaintiff’s burden to prove that
the student loans constituted marital debt, and she has failed
in that burden.
We reverse and remand this case to the trial court with
instructions to properly classify the $60,000.00 in Sallie Mae
student loans as Plaintiff’s separate debt and to enter a new
equitable distribution order reflecting this classification.
-4-
Reversed and remanded.
Judges HUNTER, Robert C. and ELMORE concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).