Case Name: CECIL C. HILL, JR. v. LINDA HILL (CRICHETT)
Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1986-12-30
Citations: 83 N.C. App. 661
Docket Number: No. 863DC389
Parties: CECIL C. HILL, JR. v. LINDA HILL (CRICHETT)
Judges: Judges PARKER and COZORT concur.
Reporter: North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports
Volume: 83
Pages: 661–662

Head Matter:
CECIL C. HILL, JR. v. LINDA HILL (CRICHETT)
No. 863DC389
(Filed 30 December 1986)
Divorce and Alimony § 30— equitable distribution — equal division of property
An equitable distribution judgment dividing the marital assets equally between the parties was supported by the findings of fact and conclusions of law stated therein.
APPEAL by plaintiff from Ragan, Judge. Judgment entered 16 December 1985 in District Court, Carteret County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 18 September 1986.
On 4 November 1983 the plaintiff sued defendant for an absolute divorce and for the equitable distribution of their property. Service on defendant was apparently obtained by publication and no answer or other pleading being filed within the time designated an entry of default was obtained from the Clerk. On 12 January 1984 Judge Roberts held a hearing and entered judgment divorcing the parties and divesting the defendant of her title interest in a certain piece of real estate. A few days later defendant filed a motion for relief from the judgment and following a hearing thereon the judgment was set aside upon findings that the purported service upon defendant was void because plaintiff had not exercised due diligence in attempting to locate and serve defendant personally. Following defendant’s answer to the complaint and a new judgment of divorce, Judge Ragan heard the equitable distribution pleas of both parties and after making certain adjustments entered judgment dividing the marital assets equally between the parties. Plaintiffs appeal is from the latter judgment.
Wheatly, Wheatly, Nobles & Weeks, by C. R. Wheatly, Jr., for plaintiff appellant.
Richard F. Gordon for defendant appellee.

Opinion:
PHILLIPS, Judge.
Though plaintiffs brief lists six questions for determination, he makes only one argument; an argument that refers to no question stated and to no assignment of error whatever. And though many exceptions are referred to in the brief the reference to all but three consists only of the following, with no clue given as to the page of the record or transcript where any exception might be found:
Pursuant to the above, we are of the opinion Exceptions 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68 and 69 are well taken, and are supported by the above argument and the documentary evidence.
No assignment of error having been brought forward and argued in the brief, all the assignments taken are deemed to have been abandoned. Rule 28(a), N.C. Rules of Appellate Procedure. Because of that circumstance our review is limited to examining the record proper and determining whether the judgment is supported by the findings of fact and conclusions of law stated therein. Rule 10(a), N.C. Rules of Appellate Procedure. Having examined the record we are of the opinion that the judgment is so supported.
Affirmed.
Judges PARKER and COZORT concur.