Edwards v. Edwards

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Edwards v. Edwards

190 S.E.2d 318, 15 N.C. App. 608, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 1992

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedAugust 2, 1972

DocketNo 7212DC404

StatusPublished

This text of 190 S.E.2d 318 (Edwards v. Edwards) 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

Edwards v. Edwards, 190 S.E.2d 318, 15 N.C. App. 608, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 1992 (N.C. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

MORRIS, Judge.

Defendant’s only assignment of error is that the court erred in denying the motion for change of venue. The grounds [609]*609for the motion were that both parties now live in Craven County and it would be more convenient for witnesses to move the action to Craven County.

Among others, the court found as facts that the minor child resides in Craven County with defendant, that plaintiff resides in Cumberland County, that at this time there is no issue pending as to child support or custody, that at the time of the separation between the parties both resided in Cumberland County, and that at this time the defendant has made no showing that appearance of witneses from Craven County is necessary. Defendant did not except to any of the findings of fact. Her only assignment of error is to the denial of the motion. She argues on appeal, however, that the evidence does not support the court’s findings. Defendant’s failure to except to the findings in this case presents the single question of whether the facts found are sufficient to support the judgment. Hatchell v. Cooper, 266 N.C. 345, 146 S.E. 2d 62 (1966); Roughton v. Jim Walter Corp., 8 N.C. App. 325, 174 S.E. 2d 389 (1970).

Defendant concedes that the change of venue is discretionary but argues that the court abused its discretion by failing to find facts upon which properly to make a decision.

The facts found support the judgment.

Affirmed.

Judges Brock and Hedrick concur.

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

MORRIS, Judge.

Defendant’s only assignment of error is that the court erred in denying the motion for change of venue. The grounds [609]*609for the motion were that both parties now live in Craven County and it would be more convenient for witnesses to move the action to Craven County.

Among others, the court found as facts that the minor child resides in Craven County with defendant, that plaintiff resides in Cumberland County, that at this time there is no issue pending as to child support or custody, that at the time of the separation between the parties both resided in Cumberland County, and that at this time the defendant has made no showing that appearance of witneses from Craven County is necessary. Defendant did not except to any of the findings of fact. Her only assignment of error is to the denial of the motion. She argues on appeal, however, that the evidence does not support the court’s findings. Defendant’s failure to except to the findings in this case presents the single question of whether the facts found are sufficient to support the judgment. Hatchell v. Cooper, 266 N.C. 345, 146 S.E. 2d 62 (1966); Roughton v. Jim Walter Corp., 8 N.C. App. 325, 174 S.E. 2d 389 (1970).

Defendant concedes that the change of venue is discretionary but argues that the court abused its discretion by failing to find facts upon which properly to make a decision.

The facts found support the judgment.

Affirmed.

Judges Brock and Hedrick concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 S.E.2d 318, 15 N.C. App. 608, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 1992, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edwards-v-edwards-ncctapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack