be the trustee of the trust.”). However, because this error does not affect our analysis of the dispositive issues on appeal, we need not disturb the court’s judgment on this ground. 2 . Because we conclude that the court properly voided the transfer from the trust to Richard as a result of Richard’s breach of the duty of loyalty, we need not address whether the transaction was supported by adequate consideration. However, if we were to reach that issue, we would find that the forgiveness of the debt owed to Richard in addition to the $12,000.00 given to the trust for each beneficiary constituted adequate consideration, and the trial court erred by concluding otherwise. See Smith-Douglas, Div. of Borden Chem., Borden, Inc. v. Kornegay, 70 N.C. App. 264, 268, 318 S.E.2d 896, 896 (1984) (<HOLDING>). 3 . Because we conclude that the subsequent
recognizing debt cancellation as consideration holding that satisfaction of preexisting debt of corporate affiliate was sufficient to support jury finding of fair consideration for the transfer of valid security interest holding transfer of legal title to property as a capital contribution to llc was in exchange for valuable consideration and constituted a sale of the property holding that plaintiffs may have a property interest in real property recognizing satisfaction of a valid debt as adequate consideration in a transfer of real property