Erhart v. Erhart

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Erhart v. Erhart

312 S.E.2d 534, 67 N.C. App. 189, 1984 N.C. App. LEXIS 3000

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedMarch 6, 1984

Docket8326DC40

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 312 S.E.2d 534 (Erhart v. Erhart) 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

Erhart v. Erhart, 312 S.E.2d 534, 67 N.C. App. 189, 1984 N.C. App. LEXIS 3000 (N.C. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

*191 VAUGHN, Chief Judge.

The Court was without authority to alter the terms of the deed of separation and the order must be vacated.

The Court was incorrect in its conclusion that because the order of specific performance was enforceable by contempt, the “Court has the equitable power to modify provisions regarding the amount of child support or alimony originally contracted for.”

The Court cannot alter the terms of the contract. The Court can, in the exercise of its powers in equity, order specific performance of only such amount as it finds to be proper. This, however, does not alter defendant’s rights at law under the agreement. “We hold that the Court in the exercise of its powers in equity could modify the prior judgment ordering specific performance of the separation agreement of the parties but that this modification did not affect the parties’ rights at law under the agreement.” Harris v. Harris, 307 N.C. 684, 685-86, 300 S.E. 2d 369, 371 (1983).

“Had the District Court modified the separation agreement we would affirm the Court of Appeals’ opinion vacating that order. However, the District Court did not modify the separation agreement. Instead the court only modified the previous performance.” Id. at 687, 300 S.E. 2d at 372.

For the reasons stated, the order from which defendant appealed is vacated.

Vacated.

Judges HILL and BECTON concur.

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

*191 VAUGHN, Chief Judge.

The Court was without authority to alter the terms of the deed of separation and the order must be vacated.

The Court was incorrect in its conclusion that because the order of specific performance was enforceable by contempt, the “Court has the equitable power to modify provisions regarding the amount of child support or alimony originally contracted for.”

The Court cannot alter the terms of the contract. The Court can, in the exercise of its powers in equity, order specific performance of only such amount as it finds to be proper. This, however, does not alter defendant’s rights at law under the agreement. “We hold that the Court in the exercise of its powers in equity could modify the prior judgment ordering specific performance of the separation agreement of the parties but that this modification did not affect the parties’ rights at law under the agreement.” Harris v. Harris, 307 N.C. 684, 685-86, 300 S.E. 2d 369, 371 (1983).

“Had the District Court modified the separation agreement we would affirm the Court of Appeals’ opinion vacating that order. However, the District Court did not modify the separation agreement. Instead the court only modified the previous performance.” Id. at 687, 300 S.E. 2d at 372.

For the reasons stated, the order from which defendant appealed is vacated.

Vacated.

Judges HILL and BECTON concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

312 S.E.2d 534, 67 N.C. App. 189, 1984 N.C. App. LEXIS 3000, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/erhart-v-erhart-ncctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack