on a factual point, is reserved for the court and excluded from the jury; an issue that is exclusively within the provision of the judge and not the jury. Question o f Law, Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014), Black’s Law Dictionary further defines a "mixed question of law and fact” as ”[a]n issue that is neither a pure question of fact nor a pure question of law.” Mixed Question of Law and Fact, Buck’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014). While this merely states the obvious, the definition refers to a corollary definition of "intermediate fact,” which is defined as "[a] fact that helps lead to an ultimate fact or is a necessary element to a chain of reasoning leading to a conclusion.” Intermediate Fact, Buck’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. ■ 2014). 8 . But see Helms, 491 S.E.2d at 674, 676 (<HOLDING>); A.B., 635 S.E,2d at 16 (holding that, in case
holding that because north carolina has opted out of the exemptions provided under 11 usc  522d the exemptions available for bankruptcy debtors in north carolina depend upon the law of north carolina holding that the states department of social services and a county prosecutor were in privity and satisfied the identity of the party requirement holding that a foreign subsidiary that is not registered to do business in north carolina has no place of business employees or bank accounts in north carolina does not design manufacture or advertise its products in north carolina and does not solicit business in north carolina cannot be subject to personal jurisdiction in north carolina even if some of the companys products do enter north carolina through the stream of commerce holding that in case where child was removed from mothers care and placed in the custody of the cabarrus county department of social services under north carolina law the reasonable efforts and best interest determinations are conclusions of law because they require the exercise of judgment holding that the failure to attach a custody order was not reversible error because there was no showing of prejudice where the respondents were aware of the childs placement the petition noted that custody of the child was given by prior orders the respondent admitted that the child was in the legal custody of the buncombe county department of social services and the respondents were present at pretermination hearings in which custody was granted to petitioner and hearings in which visitation options were discussed and determined