Kolendo v. Kolendo

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Kolendo v. Kolendo

243 S.E.2d 907, 36 N.C. App. 385, 1978 N.C. App. LEXIS 2490

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedMay 16, 1978

Docket7728SC507

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 243 S.E.2d 907 (Kolendo v. Kolendo) 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

Kolendo v. Kolendo, 243 S.E.2d 907, 36 N.C. App. 385, 1978 N.C. App. LEXIS 2490 (N.C. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

HEDRICK, Judge.

A motion made pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, G.S. 1A-1, is addressed to the discretion of the trial court. Sink v. Easter, 288 N.C. 183, 217 S.E. 2d 532 (1975). The decision of the trial court is not reviewable on appeal absent a showing of abuse of discretion. Sink v. Easter, supra.

In the present case neither party requested the judge to make findings of fact, and consequently, none were made. According to G.S. 1A-1, Rule 52(a), if no request is made by the parties to a hearing on a motion, then the trial judge is not required to find the facts upon which he bases his ruling. And “[i]n such case, it will be presumed that the judge, upon proper evidence, found facts sufficient to support his judgment.” Haiduven v. Cooper, 23 N.C. App. 67, 69, 208 S.E. 2d 223, 225 (1974). Thus, when no findings are made there is nothing for the appellate court to review. Holcomb v. Holcomb, 192 N.C. 504, 135 S.E. 287 (1926).

Affirmed.

Chief Judge BROCK and Judge MITCHELL concur.

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

HEDRICK, Judge.

A motion made pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, G.S. 1A-1, is addressed to the discretion of the trial court. Sink v. Easter, 288 N.C. 183, 217 S.E. 2d 532 (1975). The decision of the trial court is not reviewable on appeal absent a showing of abuse of discretion. Sink v. Easter, supra.

In the present case neither party requested the judge to make findings of fact, and consequently, none were made. According to G.S. 1A-1, Rule 52(a), if no request is made by the parties to a hearing on a motion, then the trial judge is not required to find the facts upon which he bases his ruling. And “[i]n such case, it will be presumed that the judge, upon proper evidence, found facts sufficient to support his judgment.” Haiduven v. Cooper, 23 N.C. App. 67, 69, 208 S.E. 2d 223, 225 (1974). Thus, when no findings are made there is nothing for the appellate court to review. Holcomb v. Holcomb, 192 N.C. 504, 135 S.E. 287 (1926).

Affirmed.

Chief Judge BROCK and Judge MITCHELL concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 S.E.2d 907, 36 N.C. App. 385, 1978 N.C. App. LEXIS 2490, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kolendo-v-kolendo-ncctapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack