Allen v. Allen
| Decision Date | 01 April 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 7014DC129,7014DC129 |
| Citation | 7 N.C.App. 555,173 S.E.2d 10 |
| Parties | Barbara W. ALLEN v. Milton B. ALLEN. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Newsom, Graham, Strayhorn & Hedrick, by Ralph N. Strayhorn and E. C. Bryson, Jr., Durham, for plaintiff appellant.
Norman E. Williams, Durham, for defendant appellee.
A court order affecting the custody or support of a minor child may be modified or vacated at any time, upon motion in the cause and a showing of changed circumstances by either party or anyone interested. G.S. § 50--13.7(a). The original decree ordering the payment of money is an adjudication of the court as to what was reasonable and proper at the time it was made. The burden of proving, by preponderance of the evidence, that a material change in the circumstances has occurred, is upon the party requesting the modification. 2 Lee, N.C. Family Law, § 153, p. 230.
The court's findings of fact are conclusive if supported by any competent evidence and a judgment supported by such findings will be affirmed. 1 Strong, N.C. Index 2d, Appeal and Error, § 57, p. 223. Plaintiff contends that so much of the following finding of fact as appears in brackets is not supported by the evidence.
Insofar as the exception relates to the income of the plaintiff, it is well taken. The only evidence relating to funds received by the plaintiff, other than those paid by defendant, tends to show: that from a gross $140.00 per week, her weekly take home pay is $105.83; that she receives $300.00 per month from Dan K. Edwards and that she receives between four and five hundred dollars each year from her father. It is evident, therefore, that the finding, '* * * that plaintiff * * * has an income of approximately Eleven Hundred and no/100 ($1,100.00) Dollars each month after deductions over and above any money paid by the defendant * * *' is not suported by evidence.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garlock v. Wake County Bd. of Educ., COA10–1123.
...findings which do not affect the conclusions. Wachovia Bank v. Bounous, 53 N.C.App. 700, 281 S.E.2d 712 (1981); Allen v. Allen, 7 N.C.App. 555, 173 S.E.2d 10 (1970).Black Horse Run Property Owners Association–Raleigh, Inc. v. Kaleel, 88 N.C.App. 83, 86, 362 S.E.2d 619, 622 (1987), disc. rev......
-
Black Horse Run Property Owners Association-Raleigh, Inc. v. Kaleel
...findings which do not affect the conclusions. Wachovia Bank v. Bounous, 53 N.C.App. 700, 281 S.E.2d 712 (1981); Allen v. Allen, 7 N.C.App. 555, 173 S.E.2d 10 (1970). The Kaleels assign error to the trial court's conclusion that the radio towers which they erected, along with the supporting ......
-
Duffey v. Duffey
...Divorce, the court essentially found that the amounts contained in the Agreement were reasonable at that time. See Allen v. Allen, 7 N.C.App. 555, 173 S.E.2d 10 (1970). Thus, for defendant to prevail in his request for a modification in the amount of child support, he must show a substantia......
-
Sherrill v. Sherrill, No. 7028SC299
...of the said judgment.' The findings of Judge Hasty were supported by the evidence and will not be disturbed on appeal. Allen v. Allen, 7 N.C.App. 555, 173 S.E.2d 10 (1970). BRITT and VAUGHN, JJ., concur. ...