Spouses going through the divorce process should not necessarily assume that the facts will speak for themselves or that they don’t need to take an active role in their divorce proceedings. Important matters are discussed at each hearing; every document the court asks for is vital to the case; and parties will not always get another chance to make their arguments.
Kaylor v. Kaylor
In this case, Husband appealed an equitable distribution order that was entered after a trial at which he was not present. He argues that the trial court erred by finding that an unequal distribution in favor of Wife was equitable and that the trial court made a mistake by classifying a certain piece of real property as marital. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order based on the determinations below.
Background of the Case
Wife filed for divorce and included a claim for equitable distribution. Six case reviews were held over a period of five months; Husband did not attend any of these review hearings, either personally or through counsel. At the final case review held in March 2023, the case was scheduled for trial. Prior to trial, Wife submitted an equitable distribution affidavit. Husband failed to submit his own equitable distribution affidavit.
The trial was held in May 2023, and Husband did not attend personally or through counsel. The trial court entered an equitable distribution order classifying the parties’ assets and debts and awarded an unequal distribution in favor of Wife. Husband appealed.
Husband’s Appeal
In Husband’s first argument regarding the unequal distribution of property, the Court of Appeals determined that the trial court did make specific and detailed findings as to each piece of property. Husband also argued that the trial court considered marital fault when awarding unequal distribution, specifically that his drug use should not have been relevant to the findings related to the health of the parties and the parties’ ability to maintain or waste marital property. The Court of Appeals determined that this was relevant since Husband’s drug use had already caused health issues and negatively affected the parties’ business and financial situation.
Regarding Husband’s argument that the trial court erred in classifying a piece of real property as marital, the Court of Appeals noted that Husband failed to attend any review hearings or submit an equitable distribution inventory affidavit. At trial, Wife moved the trial court to accept her affidavit as a verified pleading, and the lower court accepted Wife’s affidavit as the pre-trial order. In her affidavit, she listed the property in question as marital property. The trial court did not err by making this classification since the affidavit was accepted as a court order.
The Upshot
Husband’s appeal was limited by the fact he did not attend the review hearings, submit an equitable distribution inventory affidavit, or show up at trial. Because he was absent for hearings and failed to submit necessary documentation, the trial court used its discretion to base its ruling on information provided by Wife.