On January 19, 2007, Evelina Carmela Arkwright “Wife” filed for divorce from Dennis Eugene Arkwright “Husband” in the Superior Court of DeKalb County. Following an October 10, 2007 bench trial at which Husband and his attorney failed to appear, the trial court awarded Wife alimony, title to the marital residence, ownership of an Italian condominium, 50 of Husband’s retirement accounts, and attorney’s fees. Husband moved for a new trial and to set aside the final order, and the trial court denied this motion. On appeal, Husband contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion because 1 he did not have actual notice of the final trial date before the trial took place, and 2 the final order was manifestly unfair. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. 1. Husband contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to set aside because he did not have notice of the final trial date. However, Husband concedes that his attorney had actual notice of the trial date, but simply failed to notify him about the date of the trial. Neither Husband nor his counsel appeared at the trial,1 and the “failure of a party to appear . . . in consequence of a misunderstanding between him and his counsel, does not afford a meritorious reason for granting a motion to set aside a judgment.” Drain Tile Machine, Inc. v. McCannon , 80 Ga. App. 373, 376 56 SE2d 165 1949. Thus, Husband’s enumeration is without merit.
2. Husband argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial because the final order was manifestly unfair. Specifically, he claims that a the evidence did not support the trial court’s alimony award, b the trial court’s division of property was inappropriate, and c the trial court improperly awarded attorney’s fees to Wife. In considering Husband’s challenges to the trial court’s assessment of the evidence relating to the alimony award and division of marital property, “this Court will not set aside the trial court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous, and this Court properly gives due deference to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.” Citations and punctuation omitted. Frazier v. Frazier , 280 Ga. 687, 690 4 631 SE2d 666 2006.
