Flitt v. Flitt, No. COA01-301.

Docket NºNo. COA01-301.
Citation561 S.E.2d 511, 149 NC App. 475
Case DateMarch 19, 2002
CourtCourt of Appeal of North Carolina (US)

561 S.E.2d 511
149 NC App.
475

Lu Ann FLITT, Plaintiff,
v.
Bruce James FLITT, Defendant.
Bruce James Flitt, Plaintiff,
v.
Lu Ann Flitt, Defendant

No. COA01-301.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

March 19, 2002.


561 S.E.2d 512
James, McElroy & Diehl, P.A., by William K. Diehl, Jr., and Preston O. Odom, III, Charlotte, for plaintiff-appellant Bruce James Flitt

Whitesides & Kenny, L.L.P., by Terry Albright Kenny, Gastonia, for defendant-appellee Lu Ann Flitt.

TIMMONS-GOODSON, Judge.

Bruce James Flitt ("plaintiff") appeals from an order by the trial court declining to incorporate a separation agreement between plaintiff and his former wife, Lu Ann Flitt ("defendant"), into the parties' final divorce judgment. For the reasons stated herein, we determine that plaintiff's appeal is interlocutory, and we accordingly dismiss the appeal.

In his complaint for an absolute divorce filed 21 August 2000 in Gaston County District Court, File Number 00 CVD 3723, plaintiff averred that he and defendant had entered into a separation agreement, a copy of which was attached to plaintiff's complaint. In the separation agreement, plaintiff and defendant agreed to share joint physical and legal custody of their two minor children. Plaintiff's complaint requested that "the separation agreement entered into on August 11, 1999, by the parties should be incorporated in any judgment entered by the Court in this action." Paragraph VII of the separation agreement under the section entitled "Provisions for Nature and Effect of Agreement" states that:

In the event that a divorce is decreed at any time in any action or proceeding between the parties hereto, this agreement shall be submitted to the Court for its approval for incorporating the provisions related to child custody and child support. That provisions relating to spousal support and property shall not be incorporated.

The complaint further noted that matters concerning child custody and support were pending in a separate action, File Number 00 CVD 505, that was filed by defendant on 4

561 S.E.2d 513
February 2000. In the pending action for child custody and support, defendant requested primary custody and control of the children. In his answer and counterclaim to defendant's complaint for child custody and support, plaintiff alleged that defendant was "not a fit and proper person to have the care, custody and control of [the] minor children" and requested that the court award plaintiff "permanent and temporary primary legal and physical care, custody and control of the minor children."

On 1 December 2000, the trial court entered an order captioned with both File Numbers 00 CVD 505 and 00 CVD 3723. In the order, the trial court declined to incorporate the provisions of the separation agreement into the final divorce judgment, concluding that "the language of the Separation Agreement does not state that it shall be incorporated into any divorce judgment only, that it shall be submitted to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
41 practice notes
  • Beroth Oil Co. v. N.C. Dep't of Transp., No. COA11–1012.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US)
    • May 15, 2012
    ...of the cause as to all parties; the appeal of such orders is thus interlocutory.”); see also Flitt v. Flitt, 149 N.C.App. 475, 477, 561 S.E.2d 511, 513 (2002) (“An order is interlocutory if it is made during the pendency of an action and does not dispose of the case but requires further act......
  • Nation Ford Baptist Church Inc. v. Davis, COA20-800
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US)
    • October 5, 2021
    ...court in order to finally determine the rights of all the parties involved in the controversy." Flitt v. Flitt , 149 N.C. App. 475, 477, 561 S.E.2d 511, 513 (2002) (citation omitted). There is generally no right to immediately appeal from an interlocutory order. Id. Immediate appeal of an i......
  • Nation Ford Baptist Church Inc. v. Davis, COA20-800
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US)
    • October 5, 2021
    ...court in order to finally determine the rights of all the parties involved in the controversy." Flitt v. Flitt, 149 N.C.App. 475, 477, 561 S.E.2d 511, 513 (2002) (citation omitted). There is generally no right to immediately appeal from an interlocutory order. Id. Immediate appeal of an int......
  • Bolick v. County of Caldwell, No. COA06-693.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US)
    • March 6, 2007
    ...be affected were this Court to decline review of the remaining grounds in the instant appeal. See Flitt v. Flitt, 149 N.C.App. 475, 477, 561 S.E.2d 511, 513 (2002) (noting that "moving party must show that the affected right is a substantial one, and that deprivation of that right, if not c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
40 cases
  • Beroth Oil Co. v. N.C. Dep't of Transp., No. COA11–1012.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US)
    • May 15, 2012
    ...of the cause as to all parties; the appeal of such orders is thus interlocutory.”); see also Flitt v. Flitt, 149 N.C.App. 475, 477, 561 S.E.2d 511, 513 (2002) (“An order is interlocutory if it is made during the pendency of an action and does not dispose of the case but requires further act......
  • Nation Ford Baptist Church Inc. v. Davis, COA20-800
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US)
    • October 5, 2021
    ...court in order to finally determine the rights of all the parties involved in the controversy." Flitt v. Flitt , 149 N.C. App. 475, 477, 561 S.E.2d 511, 513 (2002) (citation omitted). There is generally no right to immediately appeal from an interlocutory order. Id. Immediate appeal of an i......
  • Nation Ford Baptist Church Inc. v. Davis, COA20-800
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US)
    • October 5, 2021
    ...court in order to finally determine the rights of all the parties involved in the controversy." Flitt v. Flitt, 149 N.C.App. 475, 477, 561 S.E.2d 511, 513 (2002) (citation omitted). There is generally no right to immediately appeal from an interlocutory order. Id. Immediate appeal of an int......
  • Bolick v. County of Caldwell, No. COA06-693.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US)
    • March 6, 2007
    ...be affected were this Court to decline review of the remaining grounds in the instant appeal. See Flitt v. Flitt, 149 N.C.App. 475, 477, 561 S.E.2d 511, 513 (2002) (noting that "moving party must show that the affected right is a substantial one, and that deprivation of that right, if not c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT