Harris v. Harris

• Court: Court of Appeals of North Carolina
• Decided: April 15, 2026
• Docket: 25-596
• Status: Unpublished
• Author: Judge Chris Dillon

Opinion

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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 Procedure.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. COA25-596

Filed 15 April 2026

New Hanover County, No. 20CVD003030-640

BARRY E. HARRIS, JR., Plaintiff,

v.

JILL ANN HARRIS, Defendant.

Appeal by plaintiff from order entered 7 January 2025 by Judge Jeffrey Evan

Noecker in New Hanover County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 28

January 2026.

Barry E. Harris, Jr., pro se plaintiff-appellant.

No brief filed for defendant-appellee.

DILLON, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff, Barry E. Harris, Jr., (“Husband”), appeals from an equitable

distribution order entered following hearings held in November and December 2024.

Plaintiff contends the trial court erred in its valuation and distribution of certain

marital assets. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court’s order.

I. Background HARRIS V. HARRIS

Opinion of the Court

Plaintiff and Defendant, Jill Ann Harris (“Wife”), were married in 1990 and

separated in July 2020. At the time of separation, they jointly owned three S-

Corporations: Harris Insurance Services of North Carolina, Inc. (“HIS”), Silver Spoon

Apiaries, Inc. (“SSA”), and Bee Wrangles, Inc. (“BW”). The parties agree that they

each own 50 percent of the stock in each of the respective corporations.

Following separation, Husband initiated this action for equitable distribution.

On 7 January 2025, after days of hearings on the matter, the trial court entered an

equitable distribution order. Husband timely appealed.

II. Analysis

A. Valuation of the Parties’ Business Interests

In his first argument, Husband contends the trial court erred in its valuation

and distribution of the parties’ business entities.

Equitable distribution orders are reviewed for abuse of discretion. White v.

White, 312 N.C. 770, 777 (1985). Findings of fact are binding if supported by

competent evidence, while conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. Gum v. Gum, 107

N.C. App. 734, 736 (1992); Peltzer v. Peltzer, 222 N.C. App. 784, 786 (2012).

A trial court is given discretion in selecting a valuation method for closely held

businesses. There is no set “single best approach to valuing a professional association

or practice, and various approaches or valuation methods can and have been used.”

Poore v. Poore, 75 N.C. App. 414, 419 (1985). However, the trial court “shall

determine what is the marital property and divisible property and shall provide for

-2- HARRIS V. HARRIS

an equitable distribution of the marital property and divisible property between the

parties . . . .” Wirth v. Wirth, 193 N.C. App. 657, 661 (2008). Divisible property

includes “[a]ll appreciation and diminution in value of marital property and divisible

property of the parties occurring after the date of separation and prior to the date of

distribution, except that appreciation or diminution in value which is the result of

postseparation actions or activities of a spouse shall not be treated as divisible

property.” Id. It is important to note “all factual findings in an equitable distribution

order, are binding on appellate courts when supported by competent evidence.”

Patton v. Patton, 78 N.C. App. 247, 255 (1985).

Here, the trial court heard extensive testimony regarding the businesses

owned collectively by the parties. The trial court heard testimony concerning the

parties’ business operations, including evidence related to income and financial

obligations. The trial court, as the finder of fact, was entitled to weigh this evidence

and make credibility determinations. Further, while Husband contends the court

improperly treated corporate assets and income as marital property, the business

interests themselves were marital and subject to distribution.

Thus, Husband has failed to demonstrate the trial court’s valuation was

unsupported by reason or constituted an abuse of discretion.

B. Marital Debt

Next, Husband contends the trial court erred in its treatment of the parties’

marital debt. Under our Rules of Appellant Procedure, “[i]ssues not presented in a

-3- HARRIS V. HARRIS

party’s brief, or in support of which no reason or argument is stated, will be taken as

abandoned.” N.C. R. App. P. 28(b)(6). Here, Husband fails to state any reason or

present any argument beyond his personal contention on these matters. He makes

no argument regarding how he was prejudiced by the omission. Therefore, we affirm

on this issue.

III. Conclusion

Because the findings in the equitable distribution order by the trial court were

supported by competent evidence and Plaintiff failed to state any argument for the

treatment of the marital debt, we affirm the equitable distribution order entered by

the trial court above.

AFFIRMED.

Judges TYSON and CARPENTER concur.

Report per Rule 30(e).

-4-