Court Opinion

ID: 9847018
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:52:20.150072+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:58.994127
License: Public Domain

GREENE, Judge,
concurring.
I concur with the majority that the trial court did not err in considering valuation opinions outside the scope of the pleadings; however, for the reasons stated below, I would not address the second issue raised by defendant.
As recently stated by this Court in an equitable distribution case:
A party believing the methodology used by a witness is not valid or, if valid, is not properly applied to the facts at issue, has an *797obligation to object to its admission. See N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 103(a)(1) (1999). If a timely objection is not lodged at trial, it cannot be argued on appeal that the trial court erred in relying on this evidence in determining the value of the asset at issue. See N.C.R. App. P. 10(b)(1); State v. Lucas, 302 N.C. 342, 349, 275 S.E.2d 433, 438 (1981) (admission of evidence without an objection is “not a proper basis for appeal”).
Walter v. Walter, 149 N.C. App. 723, 733, 561 S.E.2d 571, 578 (2002).
In this case, defendant did not challenge the valuation methodology of plaintiffs expert at trial. Accordingly, he cannot argue on appeal that the trial court erred in relying on that expert’s methodology. Thus, for this reason, I agree with the majority that “the trial court properly relied upon the testimony of [plaintiffs] expert.”