as the book value of Bluebird or whether the law firm’s lien was superior to the judgment lien. We conclude that the district court’s findings of fact regarding its valuation of Aubin’s 50% ownership in Bluebird are not sufficiently specific for appellate review. “Without proper findings of fact, we cannot perform our review function even though there may be evidence to support the judgment.” Chloride, Inc. v. Honeycutt, 71 N.C. App. 805, 806, 323 S.E.2d 368, 369 (1984). Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s decision to the extent it sets a value of zero for Aubin’s Bluebird stock and remand for further findings of fact regarding the value of that stock, including the methodology used in reaching that valuation. Cf. Patton v. Patton, 318 N.C. 404, 406, 348 S.E.2d 593, 595 (1986) (<HOLDING>). As in the equitable distribution context, if
holding that valuation should occur on the date of the trial at which property issues are determined holding the aggregate value of the land and its improvements is the controlling value holding that if the market value of an asset can be ascertained the decree should account for the change in value between the date of the decree and the timely execution of the distribution plan in the decree the distribution based on value at the distribution date holding that as to allocation of burdens it is not material that the facts of the case and the causes of the collision are peculiarly within the knowledge of the respondents  we are not aware   of any ground on which such an inconvenience can affect the rule of law which governs the rights of the parties internal quotation marks omitted holding in an equitable distribution case that the trial court should make specific findings regarding the value of a spouses professional practice and the existence and value of its goodwill and should clearly indicate the evidence on which its valuations are based preferably noting the valuation method or methods on which it relied internal quotation marks omitted