A divorce case in North Carolina involving three Bitcoin worth $180,000 and Pokemon cards valued at $1,800 has resulted in a mixed ruling by the state’s Court of Appeals. The court upheld the valuation of the couple’s cryptocurrency and most decisions on dividing their property. However, it overturned orders requiring the husband to pay his former wife’s legal fees and the full bill of a forensic accountant.The case involved Alexandra Warber and Tyler Warber, who married in 2016 and separated in 2022. They have two children and were granted joint physical and legal custody in March 2024. The court had also settled child support and legal fees related to the custody case.The couple went to trial in July 2024 to decide how their marital assets should be divided. The court initially approved an order submitted by Tyler on 23 August 2024. Alexandra later asked the court to reconsider it. The judge set aside the earlier order and approved a revised one on 25 January 2025.Tyler challenged the revised decision before the North Carolina Court of Appeals. In its ruling filed on 4 November 2026, the appeals court upheld most of the decisions but sent the orders on legal and accountant fees back for reconsideration.
Judge had signed wrong property order
Tyler argued that the trial court should not have changed its earlier decision. He said Alexandra should have challenged the original order before the appeals court instead of asking the same trial court to reconsider it.However, the appeals court noted that the judge had explained what went wrong during a hearing on 2 December 2024.The judge told both sides that the earlier order had not been prepared by the court. He said he might have mistakenly clicked on and signed the order submitted by Tyler.The appeals court accepted that the judge had made a mistake and that there were sufficient reasons to correct it. It rejected Tyler’s challenge to the revised order.
Three Bitcoin valued at $180,000
The couple’s cryptocurrency holdings were among the main points of disagreement. The trial court valued three Bitcoin at $60,000 each on the date of separation, putting their combined value at $180,000.A forensic accountant also traced other digital assets held by Tyler. These included money in cryptocurrency accounts and 15 digital wallets.The accountant identified digital assets worth $26,076.86 on the date of separation. This included $6 in a Coinbase account, $800.95 in Binance, $3,147.10 in Moonpay and $22,122.81 across 15 wallets.The court also included $5 from a Robinhood account and $24.03 from a Fidelity account. The total value of the cryptocurrency and other digital assets considered for division was $206,195.89.Tyler challenged these figures but had not presented his own expert or a competing valuation. He had also not objected to the forensic accountant’s qualifications or the admission of the accountant’s report during the trial.The appeals court found no clear legal error in the valuation and upheld the trial court’s decision.
Pokemon cards worth $1,800
The couple’s Pokemon trading card collection also became part of the property dispute.According to the trial court’s findings, Tyler had taken most of the collection, including its most valuable cards, from their marital home. Alexandra estimated that the cards left with her were worth $300. She put the value of the cards taken by Tyler at between $1,000 and $3,000.The trial court accepted her estimate and valued the entire collection at $1,800. It assigned $1,500 to the cards with Tyler and $300 to those remaining with Alexandra.Tyler argued that Alexandra had only guessed the value. However, he had not presented any evidence of his own to establish how much the cards were worth.The appeals court noted that a person who jointly owns property can give evidence about its value. It found that Alexandra’s testimony was sufficient to support the trial court’s decision and rejected Tyler’s challenge.
Court rejects dispute over car loan and retirement savings
The appeal also involved a 2019 Jeep Compass. Tyler claimed that $32,485 was still owed on the vehicle when the couple separated.However, he did not provide documents showing who had given the loan, the payment details or the interest rate. He also said he believed that approximately $20,000 was still outstanding.The trial court did not find his claim reliable. It also found that he had failed to show that the alleged loan had been taken for the joint benefit of both spouses.The court therefore excluded the claimed debt from the property division. The appeals court upheld this decision.Tyler also challenged the valuation of Alexandra’s TIAA retirement account. The trial court had placed the marital portion of the account at $47,748.22.However, Tyler himself had given the same valuation during the trial. The appeals court said he could not challenge a figure he had previously supported. It rejected his argument.
Court upholds unequal property division
Tyler also objected to Alexandra receiving a larger share of their marital property. North Carolina law generally favours an equal division of marital assets. However, courts can order a different division if they find that an equal split would not be fair.The law requires courts to consider 12 factors before making such a decision. In this case, the trial court examined all 12 and found that seven supported giving Alexandra a larger share.It also assigned values to the assets being divided. The appeals court found that the trial court had considered the relevant factors and gave no reason to interfere with its decision. It therefore upheld the unequal division of the marital estate.
Attorney’s fees and accountant’s bill sent back
Although the appeals court upheld most of the property decisions, it found that the trial court had not properly explained why Tyler should pay Alexandra’s legal expenses.The trial court had ordered him to pay $15,261.40 in attorney’s fees as a penalty for failing to provide documents and cooperate with the required information-sharing process.However, courts in North Carolina generally require each side to pay its own legal expenses unless a law or agreement allows otherwise.The appeals court said that an order requiring one party to pay the other’s legal fees must explain why the amount is reasonable. This includes details about the work involved, time spent, skills required, usual charges for similar work and the lawyer’s experience.Although Alexandra had submitted an affidavit listing her legal expenses, the trial court’s order did not include these details.The appeals court therefore cancelled the $15,261.40 award and sent the issue back to the trial court for fresh consideration.It also cancelled the order requiring Tyler to pay the entire forensic accountant’s bill. This issue was also sent back for reconsideration.The appeals court thus upheld the cryptocurrency valuation, the division of the marital assets and the decision to correct the earlier property order. It overturned only the orders on attorney’s fees and the forensic accountant’s bill.