Potts v. Potts

198 S.E.2d 203, 19 N.C. App. 193, 1973 N.C. App. LEXIS 1610
CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina
DecidedAugust 8, 1973
Docket7319DC279
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 198 S.E.2d 203 (Potts v. Potts) 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
Potts v. Potts, 198 S.E.2d 203, 19 N.C. App. 193, 1973 N.C. App. LEXIS 1610 (N.C. Ct. App. 1973).

Opinion

BROCK, Judge.

Defendant assigns as error that the facts found by Judge Warren are not supported by the evidence.

The order appealed from recites: “The Court, after hearing evidence and testimony in this cause from the plaintiff, finds the following facts.” It appears from the foregoing recitation that an evidentiary hearing was conducted by Judge Warren; however, appellant has failed to include the evidence in the record on appeal. Appellant did file five sheets of paper each of which is marked substantially as follows: “Designated plaintiff’s exhibit # _presumably offered and accepted into evidence at hearing on November 14, 1972.” (Emphasis added.) The source of relevancy of these five sheets of paper is not clear and they will not be considered.

Where there is evidence offered before the trial court and appellant assigns as error that the evidence does not support the findings of fact by the trial judge, but does not include the evidence in the record on appeal, we will presume the facts found are supported by competent evidence.

Defendant assigns as error that the hearing was conducted in the absence of defendant and his counsel. The record reflects that the hearing on plaintiff’s motion had been continued at *195 defendant’s request and was set for a day certain. Defendant and his counsel were well aware of the date set. Counsel apparently had another conflict and requested a further continuance. The trial court delayed the hearing for a part of the day to accommodate defense counsel, but when the matter was again reached the trial court proceeded to hear, the plaintiff’s evidence. Under the circumstances disclosed by this record defendant has failed to show an abuse of discretion.

Affirmed.

Judges VAUGHN and Baley concur.

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

Related

Andrews v. Parrish
Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2014
Hensey v. Hennessy
685 S.E.2d 541 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2009)
Tombrello v. Huang
622 S.E.2d 524 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
198 S.E.2d 203, 19 N.C. App. 193, 1973 N.C. App. LEXIS 1610, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/potts-v-potts-ncctapp-1973.