Berkley v. Berkley

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Berkley v. Berkley

132 S.E.2d 622, 260 N.C. 312, 1963 N.C. LEXIS 692

DecidedOctober 9, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 132 S.E.2d 622 (Berkley v. Berkley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Berkley v. Berkley, 132 S.E.2d 622, 260 N.C. 312, 1963 N.C. LEXIS 692 (N.C. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The evidence before Judge Mintz was conflicting with respect to the cause of the separation; likewise, divergent claims were made as to the respective incomes and needs of the parties. While the court might have made more specific and detailed findings, nevertheless enough appears to support the pendente allowance®.

Of course, th-e defendant will have opportunity to make good on his alleged defenses when the controversy is heard on the merits. Sufficient reason to disturb the order does not appear.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The evidence before Judge Mintz was conflicting with respect to the cause of the separation; likewise, divergent claims were made as to the respective incomes and needs of the parties. While the court might have made more specific and detailed findings, nevertheless enough appears to support the pendente allowance®.

Of course, th-e defendant will have opportunity to make good on his alleged defenses when the controversy is heard on the merits. Sufficient reason to disturb the order does not appear.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 S.E.2d 622, 260 N.C. 312, 1963 N.C. LEXIS 692, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berkley-v-berkley-nc-1963.