The trial court did not improperly consider marital fault when it found as a distribution factor that the defendant wasted and devalued marital assets following separation because of his use of illicit drugs. The trial court could rely on the plaintiff's inventory affidavit as evidence where the defendant failed to participate in pretrial conferences, failed to appear for trial, and failed to object when plaintiff requested during trial that the trial court admit the affidavit into evidence and to accept the facts alleged in the affidavit. 



The court of appeals held that the admitted affidavits were, in effect, the pretrial orders of the court, and the trial court could accept the facts to support the findings it made in the final judgment. The trial court did not err by failing to include a finding in the judgment as to the total value of the marital estate when the total value could be easily ascertained based on the findings and conclusions in the judgment regarding the value of the marital property and marital debt. 

The plaintiff wife filed this action for equitable distribution and the defendant husband filed an answer. However, he thereafter failed to appear for any scheduling or pretrial conference, failed to file an inventory affidavit, and failed to appear at trial. The trial court entered an equitable distribution judgment, ordering an unequal distribution in favor of the wife. The defendant appealed. Defendant argued that the trial court inappropriately considered marital fault in determining that an unequal distribution was equitable. The trial court found that, because of the defendant's use of illicit drugs, he allowed the marital business to deteriorate during separation and failed to assist plaintiff in paying marital debt during separation. The trial court also found that plaintiff maintained the marital estate during separation by paying the marital debt, including paying the mortgage on the residence where defendant resided during separation. The court of appeals rejected defendant’s argument, pointing to GS 50-20(c)(11a) which allows the trial court to consider “acts of either party to maintain, preserve, develop, or expand; or to waste, neglect, devalue or convert the marital property or divisible property, during the period after separation of the parties and before the time of distribution” as a factor when determining whether the estate should be divided unequally. Because the findings regarding the defendant's drug use related to his failure to preserve marital property during separation, they were not an inappropriate consideration of marital fault. 

The defendant also argued that findings made by the trial court regarding the classification of certain property and the value of marital debt were not supported by evidence. The court of appeals rejected this argument as well, finding that the trial court relied on allegations contained in the plaintiff's inventory affidavit to support the findings of fact in the judgment. The affidavit had been introduced at trial with a request by the plaintiff that the facts alleged in the affidavit be 20 accepted. Because the defendant did not object to the introduction and acceptance of the affidavit, the court of appeals held that the trial court properly treated the affidavit as a pretrial order, establishing the facts alleged therein.