Divorce; Reimbursement order for the amount a party paid to clear a lien on the marital home; Reliance on appeal on an attorney’s statements at a hearing; Abandoned claim

Concluding that defendant-ex-husband failed to show that the trial court erred in ordering him to reimburse plaintiff-ex-wife for the amount she paid to clear a lien on the marital home, the court affirmed. The parties agreed to a consent judgment of divorce, under which plaintiff “took sole possession of their marital home and agreed to remove” defendant’s name from the mortgage. When she “went to refinance the mortgage, she discovered defendant’s former attorney placed an attorney’s charging lien on the home a few months before the entry of the” divorce judgment for defendant’s outstanding legal bills. She “paid the lien so she could obtain clear title and refinance the mortgage as required by the” judgment, and then obtained the order at issue on appeal. Defendant asserted that the order violated the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay provision “and was otherwise erroneous because he did not have interest in the home at the time” she paid the lien. He relied “solely on his counsel’s statements made at the hearing on” plaintiff’s motion. “‘But it is well settled that an attorney’s statements and arguments are not evidence.’” And the court was not obligated “to comb the lower court file searching for facts supporting an appellant’s argument on appeal.” In addition, defendant’s appellate brief did “not sufficiently present authority demonstrating his entitlement to relief, further representing an abandonment of his claim on appeal.”