Courtroom Absenteeism – Not the Best Strategy
By: Erica Benson, A Sassy Attorney with an Attitude and the Experience to Use it!

Court of Appeals of North Carolina Case Review: Kaylor v. Kaylor (COA23-1138)

If there’s one thing we can all agree on, it’s that missing important events generally leads to bad outcomes. This sentiment holds doubly true in divorce court—especially when you don’t show up to your own trial. In Kaylor v. Kaylor, Defendant & Husband Johnny Gaither Kaylor discovered the hard way that skipping multiple court dates, including the final trial, tends to end badly. Let’s dive into the wild west of an equitable distribution case that played out as if the courtroom was a ghost town.

Missing in Action: A Risky Legal Strategy

Johnny Kaylor—who might be competing for the “Least Likely to Attend Court” award—appealed an equitable distribution order that he didn’t even bother to show up for. His absence in both pretrial hearings and the trial itself essentially left the playing field wide open for Plaintiff & Wife Beth Minteer Kaylor to score a touchdown in the form of an unequal distribution of property. This case is what happens when “ghosting” isn’t just for dating apps but becomes part of your courtroom strategy.

After 23 years of marriage (with no kids mentioned in the order), the Kaylor split featured some fascinating highlights: the rapid decline of a once-thriving electrical business, rampant drug use, and a defendant more absent than a student on senior skip day. Naturally, Beth argued for—and received—an unequal distribution of their property, thanks in part to Johnny’s post-heart-attack methamphetamine habit and his neglect of the family business. And who’s surprised? When you forget to pay the bills or attend your own trial, the court’s going to give the win to the other side.

Unequal Distribution: More Drama Than a Soap Opera

Here’s the crux of Johnny’s appeal: he argued that the trial court’s decision to give Beth more of the marital property was “unfair.” But fairness is subjective when you’re not even in the courtroom to make your case. Johnny failed to submit his equitable distribution affidavit, leaving Beth’s affidavit as the gospel truth. The court did what any reasonable judge would do: they handed Beth the metaphorical reins to what was left of the marriage’s assets.

The trial court found that Johnny’s drug use led to the deterioration of their business, Kaylor Electric, which once gave the couple a comfortable lifestyle. Since Beth had been handling the bookkeeping for years—without pay, no less—and continued to make mortgage payments on two properties while Johnny spiraled into drug use, the court ruled that an unequal distribution in her favor was justified. The nail in Johnny’s coffin? His inability (or unwillingness) to service the debts on the properties, which Beth took care of even after separation. Remember, folks: paying bills while your spouse parties like it’s 1999 tends to earn brownie points in court (enter Prince riff here in your head).

Meth, Mortgages, and Marital Property

One of Johnny’s more interesting arguments was that the trial court incorrectly classified their property at 524 East Main Street as marital. His evidence for this? Well, he didn’t really have any. Since Johnny didn’t show up or submit any paperwork, Beth’s affidavit—which listed the property as marital—went unchallenged. It’s a little hard to argue against facts when you’re MIA.

Taxes and Credit Card Shenanigans

If Johnny wasn’t already knee-deep in his own courtroom mess, his challenge to the court’s findings about ad valorem taxes was laughable. He argued that the trial court’s findings weren’t based on competent evidence, but here’s the kicker: the evidence was, in fact, all neatly laid out in Beth’s affidavit, which went completely unopposed. Again, if you’re going to argue that someone’s wrong, you might want to actually attend the trial and offer evidence of your position or belief.

The cherry on top? The court noted Beth’s discovery of $7,800 in fraudulent charges on a credit card, apparently racked up by Johnny after their separation. While Beth tries to sort out the mess with the credit card company, you know she disputed the charges, the court left the door open for her to come back and petition to readdress this debt. Johnny, meanwhile, continues to do shady stuff and then complain about it later. .

The Moral of the Story

So, what can we learn from Kaylor v. Kaylor? The courtroom isn’t the place to pull a disappearing act. If you want a say in the outcome of your divorce, at the very least, show up. And if you’re the one running up fraudulent credit card charges? Well, that’s a whole other issue that might just come back to bite you and likely should. Don’t you wonder why he even wasted the money for an appeal after the fact? I sure do!

In the end, Johnny’s appeal was about as successful as his courtroom attendance. The court affirmed the trial court’s decision, meaning Beth walked away with a bigger slice of the pie—and probably a sigh of relief. The lesson here: when life hands you court dates, be there—or be prepared for the other side to clean up.

• No Attorney-Client Relationship: Reading this blog or downloading any related resource does not create an attorney-client relationship. That relationship is formed only when a written engagement agreement is signed by both parties.
• Information, Not Advice: This content is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every equitable distribution case is fact-specific, and outcomes depend on the particular assets, debts, marital history, and county involved.
• No Guarantee of Results: Past case outcomes do not predict future results.
• Office Responsibility: Cape Fear Family Law is responsible for the content of this advertisement. Our principal office is located in Wilmington, North Carolina, with additional offices in Durham and the Jacksonville/Camp Lejeune corridor.