in the Court of Appeals 8 March 2017
by plaintiff from order entered 1 April 2016 by Judge Ward D.
Scott in Buncombe County No. 13 CVD 1382 District Court.
Elizabeth Arrowood for plaintiff-appellant.
Prendergast and Siemens Family Law Group, by Jim Siemens, for
Jeanne Lund ("Wife"), appeals from the trial
court's revised equitable distribution order, entered
after this Court's remand for further findings of fact.
and Defendant ("Husband") married on 14 February
1997, separated on 5 January 2013, and divorced on 6 February
2014. Prior to the date of absolute divorce, Wife had sued
Husband for equitable distribution and sought an
unequal distribution of the marital estate. Husband
answered and counterclaimed for an equitable and equal
distribution of the marital estate. The matter came before
the trial court and was heard during a four-day trial. On 11
August 2014, the trial court entered an equitable
distribution order, which divided the marital estate equally.
trial court heard testimony regarding the value of the former
marital residence located at 403 Sugar Hollow Drive,
Fairview, North Carolina. Three licensed real estate
appraisers testified as expert witnesses regarding the fair
market value of the marital residence. Two of the appraisers
testified on behalf of Wife. Mark Morris, Husband's
witness, opined $263, 000.00 was the value of the marital
residence on the date of separation.
court found Mr. Morris was the only appraiser to testify and
opine to the value of the marital residence on the date of
separation. The court found Mr. Morris's testimony as
credible, determined $263, 000.00 to be the value of the
marital residence, and distributed that property to Husband.
trial court further found that neither party had presented
evidence regarding the value of the marital home at the date
of distribution. The court concluded there was no divisible
property in connection with the marital home, since neither
party had presented evidence tending to show any increase or
decrease in value of the home during the time period between
the parties' separation and distribution of the property.
appealed the 11 August 2014 order to this Court. This Court
reversed the trial court's finding "that neither
party introduced evidence of divisible property associated
with any passive increase (or decrease) in value of the
marital home during the period of separation[.]"
Lund v. Lund, ___ N.C.App. ___, ___, 779 S.E.2d 175,
184 (2015) ("Lund I"). This Court remanded
the issue to the trial court "for more findings on this
issue, " and to revise the order, if necessary, to
achieve an equitable division of the parties' marital
property. Id. The trial court did not hear, receive,
or consider further evidence upon remand, and entered a
revised order on 1 April 2016. Wife appeals.
argues the trial court erred by: (1) finding Wife's
evidence on the value of the marital home was speculative and
not credible; (2) failing to value and distribute, as
divisible property, the increase in value of the marital home
from the date of separation through the date of trial; (3)
failing to properly consider the unequal distributional
factors raised by Wife and to make appropriate findings of
fact with regard to those factors; and, ...