Williamson v. Williamson ( 2015 )

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling
legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the
provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedur e.
NO. COA14-838
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
Filed: 17 February 2015
DONALD LEE WILLIAMSON,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. Catawba County
No. 07 CVD 3914
MELANIE FOSTER WILLIAMSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal by Defendant from orders entered 27 January 2014 and
16 April 2014 by Judge J. Gary Dellinger in District Court, Catawba
County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 20 January 2015.
Wesley E. Starnes for Plaintiff-Appellee.
LeCroy Law Firm, PLLC, by M. Alan LeCroy, for Defendant-
Appellant.
McGEE, Chief Judge.
We dismiss Defendant’s appeal due to violations of the North
Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure, and because Defendant has
failed to include evidence in the record necessary for appellate
review.
Procedural Background
-2-
Donald Lee Williamson (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against
Melanie Foster Williamson (“Defendant”) on 1 November 2007
seeking, inter alia, equitable distribution. Defendant filed her
answer and counterclaim on 25 January 2008, which included claims
for divorce, equitable distribution, post-separation support,
alimony, child custody, child support and other claims. The
parties’ equitable distribution claims were heard on 21 and 22
April 2009, and an equitable distribution order was entered on 1
October 2009. Defendant appealed, and this Court filed an opinion
on 6 December 2011 vacating the 1 October 2009 order and remanding
for additional findings of fact. Williamson v. Williamson, 217
N.C. App. 375, 719 S.E.2d 628 (2011). The trial court entered an
amended equitable distribution order on 13 August 2012. Defendant
again appealed, and the matter was decided by an opinion filed by
this Court on 16 July 2013. Williamson v. Williamson, __ N.C.
App. __, 748 S.E.2d 775, 2013 WL 3770690 (2013). This Court
affirmed in part, vacated in part, and
remanded to the trial court (1) to determine
the amount, if any, of credits to be given to
[P]laintiff for payments made on or after 1
July 2009; (2) to determine the fair market
value of the residence on the date of
separation and the date of distribution; and
(3) for entry of a final distributive award
that considers the impact of the two findings
on the undisturbed portion of the award. The
trial court shall hear evidence on these
matters.
-3-
Id., 2013 WL 3770690, at *4.
A hearing on these matters was conducted on 26 August 2013,
and the trial court entered a new equitable distribution order on
27 January 2014. Defendant filed a notice of appeal on 5 February
2014. Defendant then filed a “Motion to Withdraw Notice of Appeal;
Motion to Amend Judgment and/or Motion for Relief from Order
Pursuant to Rules 59 and 60 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil
Procedure” on 10 February 2014. The trial court heard Defendant’s
motions on 4 March 2014, and entered an order on 16 April 2014
allowing Defendant to withdraw her notice of appeal, and denying
Defendant’s motions pursuant to Rules 59 and 60. In addressing
Defendant’s Rule 59 motion, the trial court noted that “Defendant
did not offer any case or statutory law to support [her] argument.”
The trial court further stated: “Defendant has not cited any
grounds as set forth in . . . Rule 59 . . . for a new trial and
that motion should be denied[,]” and “Defendant has not stated any
basis pursuant to . . . Rule 60 . . . for relief from judgment and
that motion should be denied.” The trial court further stated
that “Defendant has not made any claim based on any grounds
permitted under [R]ule 59 or 60 . . . but has relied on a barebones
assertion that ‘the Court did not have jurisdiction’ to make
‘illegal’ Findings of Fact.” Defendant appeals from both the 27
-4-
January 2014 equitable distribution order and the 16 April 2014
order denying her motions pursuant to Rules 59 and 60.
Analysis
Because Defendant has violated the North Carolina Rules of
Appellate Procedure, and because Defendant has failed to include
evidence in the record necessary for appellate review, we dismiss
Defendant’s appeal.
Similar to Defendant’s Rule 59 and Rule 60 arguments before
the trial court, on appeal Defendant relies on bald assertions of
error absent citation to any legal authority. There are two
citations to authority in Defendant’s brief, both solely relevant
to Defendant’s generic statements concerning the standard of
review when challenging an equitable distribution order. There is
no citation to any authority in any of Defendant’s six arguments
on appeal. “Failure to cite to supporting authority is a violation
of Rule 28(b)(6) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate
Procedure, and constitutes abandonment of th[e] argument.” State
v. Velazquez-Perez, __ N.C. App. __, __, 756 S.E.2d 869, 876,
appeal dismissed, disc. review denied, 367 N.C. 509, 758 S.E.2d
881 (2014); see also In re A.J. M.-B., 212 N.C. App. 586, 595, 713
S.E.2d 104, 111 (2011). “It is not the duty of this Court to
supplement an appellant's brief with legal authority or arguments
not contained therein.” Goodson v. P.H. Glatfelter Co., 171 N.C.
-5-
App. 596, 606, 615 S.E.2d 350, 358 (2005); see also Viar v. N.C.
Dep't of Transp., 359 N.C. 400, 402, 610 S.E.2d 360, 361 (2005)
(“It is not the role of the appellate courts . . . to create an
appeal for an appellant.”). Because Defendant has failed to direct
us to a single citation of authority in support of any of her
arguments on appeal, we dismiss her appeal.
Further, Defendant has not included transcripts from any of
the equitable distribution hearings, or the hearing on Defendant’s
motions pursuant to Rules 59 and 60. “Pursuant to the North
Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure, our review is limited to
what appears in the record on appeal.” Estate of Redden v. Redden,
194 N.C. App. 806, 810, 670 S.E.2d 586, 589 (2009) (citation
omitted). “In appeals from the trial division of the General Court
of Justice, review is solely upon the record on appeal, the
verbatim transcript of proceedings, if one is designated, and any
other items filed pursuant to this Rule 9.” N.C. R. App. P. Rule
9(a) (2013). “It is appellant's duty to ensure that the record is
complete.” Redden, 194 N.C. App. at 810, 670 S.E.2d at 589
(citation omitted). Defendant’s failure to include the
transcripts in the record prevent us from meaningful appellate
review, and constitutes an additional basis upon which to dismiss
her appeal. Hill v. Hill, 173 N.C. App. 309, 322, 622 S.E.2d 503,
512 (2005).
-6-
Dismissed.
Judges CALABRIA and McCULLOUGH concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).