Harvey v. Harvey

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Harvey v. Harvey

351 S.E.2d 842, 84 N.C. App. 145, 1987 N.C. App. LEXIS 2388

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedJanuary 20, 1987

DocketNo. 8617DC206

StatusPublished

This text of 351 S.E.2d 842 (Harvey v. Harvey) 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

Harvey v. Harvey, 351 S.E.2d 842, 84 N.C. App. 145, 1987 N.C. App. LEXIS 2388 (N.C. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PARKER, Judge.

In this action for divorce, a decree for absolute divorce was entered on 8 September 1983 with the issues of alimony, child custody and support and equitable distribution to be heard at a later date. The issues of alimony and equitable distribution came on for hearing on 12 January 1984 and 12 July 1984 and a judgment was signed and filed 24 September 1985. Thereafter on 2 October 1985 plaintiff filed a motion for rehearing. On 27 November 1985, an order was entered denying the motion for new trial or rehearing. Plaintiff gave notice of appeal from this order; plaintiff did not appeal the 24 September 1985 judgment.

[146]*146Plaintiff not having appealed from the 24 September 1985 judgment, the only possible exception preserved for review was exception no. 7 relating to denial of the motion for rehearing. See Hamlin v. Austin, 49 N.C. App. 196, 270 S.E. 2d 558 (1980). Plaintiff, however, set forth no argument or authority in support of this exception in her brief. Accordingly, this exception is deemed abandoned pursuant to Rule 28(b)(5) of the N.C. Rules of Appellate Procedure and the appeal is

Dismissed.

Judges Arnold and Eagles concur.

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

PARKER, Judge.

In this action for divorce, a decree for absolute divorce was entered on 8 September 1983 with the issues of alimony, child custody and support and equitable distribution to be heard at a later date. The issues of alimony and equitable distribution came on for hearing on 12 January 1984 and 12 July 1984 and a judgment was signed and filed 24 September 1985. Thereafter on 2 October 1985 plaintiff filed a motion for rehearing. On 27 November 1985, an order was entered denying the motion for new trial or rehearing. Plaintiff gave notice of appeal from this order; plaintiff did not appeal the 24 September 1985 judgment.

[146]*146Plaintiff not having appealed from the 24 September 1985 judgment, the only possible exception preserved for review was exception no. 7 relating to denial of the motion for rehearing. See Hamlin v. Austin, 49 N.C. App. 196, 270 S.E. 2d 558 (1980). Plaintiff, however, set forth no argument or authority in support of this exception in her brief. Accordingly, this exception is deemed abandoned pursuant to Rule 28(b)(5) of the N.C. Rules of Appellate Procedure and the appeal is

Dismissed.

Judges Arnold and Eagles concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

351 S.E.2d 842, 84 N.C. App. 145, 1987 N.C. App. LEXIS 2388, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harvey-v-harvey-ncctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack