Effect of default, unequal distribution The trial court did not err in awarding the defendant a larger share of the marital estate even though a default had been entered against him and he had not requested an unequal distribution in his pleadings. A party requesting an unequal distribution has the burden to prove – based on the distribution factors listed in GS 50-20(c) – that an equal distribution is not equitable. However, once that burden is met, the trial court can award a larger share of the marital estate to either party. While the entry of a default prohibits a defendant from asserting a response to plaintiff’s complaint, it does not alter the trial court’s obligation to determine which property is marital, the value that property, and to distribute it equitably. 



The plaintiff filed for equitable distribution and requested an unequal distribution. Defendant did not file an answer, did not file an inventory affidavit until shortly before trial, did not respond to discovery and did not respond to discovery requests or participate in discovery or pretrial conferences. A default was entered against him. Both plaintiff and defendant appeared for the ED trial and presented evidence. The trial court classified the marital assets, identified the separate property of the parties, and entered an unequal distribution in favor of defendant. The marital home had been acquired by defendant before marriage but gifted to the marriage shortly before separation. The trial court distributed the home to the defendant along with his 401K. The value of those two assets was more than 50% of the total value of the marital estate. The court of appeals rejected wife’s argument that the trial court erred in awarding the defendant more of the marital estate when he did not specifically request an unequal distribution and a default had been entered against him. The court held that the entry of the default against defendant did not affect the trial court’s obligation to properly “dispose of plaintiff’s claim”. Defendant lost the right to assert a response to plaintiff’s complaint, but it did not relieve the trial court of the obligation to classify and value the property based on the evidence presented by both parties and to decide what constitutes an equitable distribution. 

Once plaintiff proved by evidence relating to the distribution factors listed in the statute that an unequal distribution was equitable, the trial court had the discretion to fashion a distribution that was equitable under the circumstances. A trial court’s determination of what constitutes an equitable division of marital assets will be upheld unless shown to be “so arbitrary that it cannot be the result of a reasoned decision.”