Domestic Relations – Equitable Distribution – Division of Marital Property

The trial court complied with the statutory requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. §50-20(c) by citing to competent evidence and making the requisite findings that equal distribution is equitable.

We discerned no error and affirmed the trial court’s holding.

This appeal was one of three before this Court arising from the same underlying matter. In this case, plaintiff appealed from the trial court’s order for equitable distribution. As to plaintiff’s issues presented for appellate review, he asserted the following: the trial court erred in not permitting plaintiff leave to amend the equitable distribution inventory affidavit; the trial court erred in admitting the post-nuptial agreement into evidence; the trial court erred in the findings of fact; the trial court erred in awarding the mortgage debt to defendant; the trial court erred in consideration and distribution of IRS debts; and the trial court erred in the calculation of the distributive amount.

Plaintiff’s third case arose from the trial court’s equitable distribution order where the trial court made written findings of fact supporting the division of marital property. Plaintiff appealed the order, asserting six disputes with the equitable distribution. First, plaintiff asserted that the trial court should have granted him leave to amend his equitable distribution inventory affidavit. Second, plaintiff said that the trial court erred in admitting a post-nuptial agreement. Third, plaintiff disputed certain findings of fact by the trial court and contends that they are not supported by competent evidence. Fourth, plaintiff asserted that the trial court erred in awarding mortgage debt to defendant with “the wrong valuation.” Fifth, plaintiff maintained that the trial court erred in its consideration of IRS debts. And sixth, plaintiff argued that the trial court erred in determining the distributive amount.

We held that the trial court complied with the statutory requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. §50-20(c) by citing to competent evidence and making the requisite findings that equal distribution is equitable. We see no reason to disturb the trial court’s findings. As such, we concluded that the court did not abuse its discretion by ordering an equal distribution and affirm the trial court’s order.

Having accounted for what is available to this Court for consideration, we held any remaining arguments abandoned considering that “it is not the role of this Court to create an appeal for an appellant or to supplement an appellant’s brief with legal authority or arguments not contained therein.”

Affirmed.

Webster v. Devane-Webster (Lawyers’ Weekly No. 012-133-24, 9 pp.) (Michael Stading, J.) Appealed from Wake County District Court (Judges David Baker, Julie Bell, and Damion McCullers) Stetson Mansfield Webster, pro se, for the plaintiff-appellant; No brief filed for defendant-appellee. North Carolina Court of Appeals Unpublished