the trial court not only recited the events surrounding Okinawa, but also made findings regarding marital misconduct of defendant and other marital misconduct of plaintiff. Not surprisingly, the trial court then found that “[t]he marriage between the parties was dysfunctional” and that “[b]oth parties were at fault in the breakup of the marriage.” The trial court then specifically found — while addressing the alimony issue — that “[d] espite the marital misconduct of the plaintiff, she should be given credit for her career sacrifices that no doubt helped the defendant succeed in his military goals.” The trial court thus fully addressed the question of plaintiff’s misconduct as it relates to alimony. See Friend-Novorska v. Novorska, 143 N.C. App. 387, 395, 545 S.E.2d 788, 794 (2001) (<HOLDING>). Defendant also asserts the trial court made
holding remand proper on circuit courts own motion in a workers compensation case where the commission failed to make essential findings of fact because to hold otherwise would in such cases make the determination of the rights of the parties turn upon the neglect of the commission to make essential findings of fact or require the appellate court to make the omitted findings of fact which our statute forbids holding that trial court made sufficient findings of fact when it dismissed appeal holding because defendant does not argue in his brief that these findings of fact are not supported by    evidence in the record this court is bound by the trial courts findings of fact holding the findings of fact required to support an alimony award are sufficient if findings of fact have been made on the ultimate facts at issue in the case and the findings of fact show the trial court properly applied the law in the case holding that an issue was not properly before the court on appeal because the trial court did not have the opportunity to make any findings of fact regarding it