Carroll v. Sandlin

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Carroll v. Sandlin

193 S.E.2d 282, 17 N.C. App. 140, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 1595

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedDecember 20, 1972

DocketNo. 724DC763

StatusPublished

This text of 193 S.E.2d 282 (Carroll v. Sandlin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carroll v. Sandlin, 193 S.E.2d 282, 17 N.C. App. 140, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 1595 (N.C. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PARKER, Judge.

By this appeal defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court’s findings of fact and the sufficiency of the findings to support the judgment. The findings of fact by the judge in contempt proceedings are conclusive on appeal when supported by any competent evidence, and are reviewable only for the purpose of passing on their sufficiency to warrant the judgment. Rose’s Stores, Inc. v. Tarrytown Center, Inc., 270 N.C. 206, 154 S.E. 2d 313. While the evidence in the present case was conflicting and differing inferences could legitimately be drawn therefrom, in our opinion it was sufficient to support the crucial finding made by the trial court to the effect that, since the entry of the previous order and at time of entry of the order finding him in willful contempt, defendant possessed the ability and the means to make the child support payments which he had been ordered to make. Thus, the essential finding which the Supreme Court found missing in Mauney v. Mauney, 268 N.C. 254, 150 S.E. 2d 391, and Yow v. Yow, 243 N.C. 79, 89 S.E. 2d 867, was here made. Since defendant admitted he had failed to comply with the court’s order and the court on competent evidence has found he possessed the means to do so, the judgment finding him in willful contempt and imposing punishment therefor is

Affirmed.

Judges Campbell and Morris concur.

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

PARKER, Judge.

By this appeal defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court’s findings of fact and the sufficiency of the findings to support the judgment. The findings of fact by the judge in contempt proceedings are conclusive on appeal when supported by any competent evidence, and are reviewable only for the purpose of passing on their sufficiency to warrant the judgment. Rose’s Stores, Inc. v. Tarrytown Center, Inc., 270 N.C. 206, 154 S.E. 2d 313. While the evidence in the present case was conflicting and differing inferences could legitimately be drawn therefrom, in our opinion it was sufficient to support the crucial finding made by the trial court to the effect that, since the entry of the previous order and at time of entry of the order finding him in willful contempt, defendant possessed the ability and the means to make the child support payments which he had been ordered to make. Thus, the essential finding which the Supreme Court found missing in Mauney v. Mauney, 268 N.C. 254, 150 S.E. 2d 391, and Yow v. Yow, 243 N.C. 79, 89 S.E. 2d 867, was here made. Since defendant admitted he had failed to comply with the court’s order and the court on competent evidence has found he possessed the means to do so, the judgment finding him in willful contempt and imposing punishment therefor is

Affirmed.

Judges Campbell and Morris concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 S.E.2d 282, 17 N.C. App. 140, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 1595, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carroll-v-sandlin-ncctapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack