Id. (quoting Coble v. Coble, 300 N.C. 708, 712-13, 268 S.E.2d 185, 189 (1980)). ¶ 15 Further, "where a trial court's findings of fact are not challenged on appeal, they are deemed to be supported by competent evidence and are binding on appeal." Kabasan v. Kabasan, 257 N.C.App. 436, 440, 810 S.E.2d 691, 696 (2018) (citation omitted). However, we review de novo a trial court's conclusions of law. Robbins v. Robbins, 240 N.C.App. 386, 395, 770 S.E.2d 723, 728, disc. review denied, 368 N.C. 283, 775 S.E.2d 858 (2015).
"Unchallenged findings of fact are binding on appeal." Kabasan v. Kabasan, 257 N.C. App. 436, 444, 810 S.E.2d 691, 698 (2018) (citation omitted). Defendant challenges three of the trial court's findings of fact in its order denying his motion to set aside:
"The trial court’s findings of fact are binding on appeal as long as competent evidence supports them, despite the existence of evidence to the contrary." Kabasan v. Kabasan, 257 N.C. App. 436, 440, 810 S.E.2d 691, 696 (2018) (citation omitted). The classification of property in an equitable distribution proceeding is considered a conclusion of law and is reviewed de novo.
But the trial court did not simply decide on its own that defendant does not suffer from adaptive deficits, as defendant frames it, but rather found that "[t]he totality of the credible evidence does not support a finding" that defendant suffers from adaptive deficits. See generallyKabasan v. Kabasan , 257 N.C. App. 436, 457, 810 S.E.2d 691, 705 (2018) ("Questions of credibility and the weight to be accorded the evidence remain in the province of the finder of facts." (citation and quotation marks omitted)).
Thus, upon review of an equitable distribution order, "this Court will uphold the trial court's written findings of fact as long as they are supported by competent evidence." Kabasan v. Kabasan , 257 N.C. App. 436, 441, 810 S.E.2d 691, 696 (2018). "Because the classification of property in an equitable distribution proceeding requires the application of legal principles, this determination is most appropriately considered a conclusion of law."
"Although a party may disagree with the trial court's credibility and weight determinations, those determinations are solely within the province of the trial court." Kabasan v. Kabasan, 257 N.C. App. 436, 471, 810 S.E.2d 691, 713 (2018) (citation omitted). Accordingly, both of these findings are supported by competent evidence.
"If the trial court fails to make findings regarding the parties' expenses, we must remand for entry of additional findings." Kabasan v. Kabasan, ___ N.C. App. ___, ___, 810 S.E.2d 691, ___ (Jan. 18, 2018) (No. COA17-254) (citing Rhew v. Rhew, 138 N.C. App. 467, 531 S.E.2d 471 (2000)). In the order, Finding 33 states, "Considering [Defendant]'s income and [Defendant]'s reasonable needs and expenses, [Defendant] has the ability to pay [Plaintiff] alimony in the amount of $904.00 per month and shall be ordered to pay said amount."
We have carefully considered what we can discern, and find any remaining arguments abandoned considering the foregoing since "it is not the role of this Court to create an appeal for an appellant or to supplement an appellant's brief with legal authority or arguments not contained therein." Thompson v. Bass, 261 N.C.App. 285, 292, 819 S.E.2d 621, 627 (2018) (citations omitted); Kabasan v. Kabasan, 257 N.C.App. 436, 443, 810 S.E.2d 691, 697 (2018).
Having accounted for what is available to this Court for consideration, we hold any remaining arguments abandoned considering that "it is not the role of this Court to create an appeal for an appellant or to supplement an appellant's brief with legal authority or arguments not contained therein." Thompson v. Bass, 261 N.C.App. 285, 292, 819 S.E.2d 621, 627 (2018) (citations omitted); Kabasan v. Kabasan, 257 N.C.App. 436, 443, 810 S.E.2d 691, 697 (2018).
Thompson v. Bass, 261 N.C.App. 285, 292, 819 S.E.2d 621, 627 (2018) (citations omitted); Kabasan v. Kabasan, 257 N.C.App. 436, 443, 810 S.E.2d 691, 697 (2018).