The North Carolina Court of Appeals has ruled in the case of Rundlett v. Rundlett, affirming the trial court's decision to award alimony to Leslie M. Rundlett while also remanding the equitable distribution of marital property for further review. The decision affects the financial obligations of Raymond C. Rundlett, II, as he must continue to make monthly alimony payments and address the division of their shared assets.
This case centers on the divorce proceedings between Leslie and Raymond Rundlett, who were married for over 32 years before separating in September 2021. Leslie filed for post-separation support, alimony, equitable distribution of property, and attorney’s fees, leading to a trial court ruling in March 2025. The appellate court heard the case on September 30, 2026, and issued its opinion on October 21, 2026.
The couple married on November 12, 1988, and during their marriage, Leslie was primarily a homemaker, taking care of their three children and managing the household. In contrast, Raymond was the primary breadwinner, earning a substantial income. After their separation, Leslie sought financial support, claiming she had sacrificed her career to support Raymond’s professional advancements.
In the trial court’s ruling, Leslie was awarded alimony of $5,500 per month, along with a distribution of marital assets. However, Raymond appealed the decision, arguing that the trial court erred in several areas, including the classification and valuation of marital property and the amount of alimony awarded.
The court ruled that the trial court's findings supported the award of alimony. The opinion stated, "The remaining and unchallenged findings of fact are sufficient to support the award of alimony to Wife in the amount of $5,500 per month." The appellate court noted that Leslie had been the dependent spouse, relying on Raymond’s income, and that he had the financial capacity to pay the alimony.
Judge John Tyson authored the opinion, with Judges Stading and Murry concurring. The court acknowledged that while Raymond claimed the trial court had improperly classified and valued their marital property, the evidence presented supported the trial court's findings. However, the court also recognized that some aspects of the equitable distribution order lacked clarity and required further examination.
The appellate court specifically identified issues with the classification and valuation of certain assets, including a Charles Schwab Brokerage Account and a Wells Fargo 401K Account. The court stated, "We vacate and remand to the trial court for proper classification, valuation, and distribution of these assets." This means that the trial court must revisit these specific items to ensure they are accurately classified and valued in accordance with the law.
In addition to the alimony award, the trial court had ordered Raymond to pay $18,000 in attorney’s fees to Leslie. The appellate court affirmed this decision, noting that Leslie met the criteria for receiving attorney’s fees as a dependent spouse without sufficient means to cover litigation costs.
The ruling has significant implications for both parties. Leslie will continue to receive financial support through alimony, which is essential for her maintenance after years of being a homemaker. For Raymond, the ruling means he must adhere to the financial obligations set forth by the court, including the alimony payments and any adjustments resulting from the remand concerning property distribution.
This case illustrates the complexities involved in divorce proceedings, particularly regarding alimony and equitable distribution. It highlights the importance of thorough documentation and clear findings in divorce cases, as the appellate court emphasized the need for detailed evidence to support asset classification and valuation.
Looking ahead, the trial court will need to address the remanded issues, which may involve additional hearings or submissions from both parties regarding the valuation of the disputed assets. The outcome of this review could potentially alter the financial landscape for both Leslie and Raymond.
In summary, the North Carolina Court of Appeals has upheld the alimony award to Leslie Rundlett while sending back certain aspects of the property distribution for further review. This decision underscores the court's commitment to ensuring fair financial resolutions in divorce cases.