Vincent v. Vincent

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Vincent v. Vincent

197 S.E.2d 801, 18 N.C. App. 668, 1973 N.C. App. LEXIS 1974

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedJuly 11, 1973

DocketNo. 7328DC393

StatusPublished

This text of 197 S.E.2d 801 (Vincent v. Vincent) 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

Vincent v. Vincent, 197 S.E.2d 801, 18 N.C. App. 668, 1973 N.C. App. LEXIS 1974 (N.C. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

PARKER, Judge.

The judgment appealed from was dated 15 December 1972. The record on appeal was not docketed in the Court of Appeals and no order extending the time for docketing was entered within 90 days after the date of the judgment. After the expiration of the 90-day period, and on 21 March 1973, the trial judge signed an order purporting to extend the time for docketing. After the time for docketing the record on appeal in the Court of Appeals has expired, the trial tribunal is without authority to enter a valid order extending the time for docketing, and this appeal is therefore subject to dismissal. State v. Lee, 15 N.C. App. 234, 189 S.E. 2d 505; Simmons v. Textile Workers [669]*669Union, 15 N.C. App. 220, 189 S.E. 2d 556; Distributing Corp. v. Parts, Inc., 10 N.C. App. 737, 179 S.E. 2d 793; Dixon v. Dixon, 6 N.C. App. 623, 170 S.E. 2d 561; Roberts v. Stewart and Newton v. Stewart, 3 N.C. App. 120, 164 S.E. 2d 58.

Nevertheless, we have carefully reviewed the record and have considered such of the assignments of error as are properly set forth therein and in support of which any argument is stated or authority cited in appellant’s brief. We find no prejudicial error sufficient to warrant granting a new trial. No abuse of discretion by the trial judge in fixing the amount of the alimony and counsel fees has been shown.

Appeal dismissed.

Judges Campbell and Morris concur.

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

PARKER, Judge.

The judgment appealed from was dated 15 December 1972. The record on appeal was not docketed in the Court of Appeals and no order extending the time for docketing was entered within 90 days after the date of the judgment. After the expiration of the 90-day period, and on 21 March 1973, the trial judge signed an order purporting to extend the time for docketing. After the time for docketing the record on appeal in the Court of Appeals has expired, the trial tribunal is without authority to enter a valid order extending the time for docketing, and this appeal is therefore subject to dismissal. State v. Lee, 15 N.C. App. 234, 189 S.E. 2d 505; Simmons v. Textile Workers [669]*669Union, 15 N.C. App. 220, 189 S.E. 2d 556; Distributing Corp. v. Parts, Inc., 10 N.C. App. 737, 179 S.E. 2d 793; Dixon v. Dixon, 6 N.C. App. 623, 170 S.E. 2d 561; Roberts v. Stewart and Newton v. Stewart, 3 N.C. App. 120, 164 S.E. 2d 58.

Nevertheless, we have carefully reviewed the record and have considered such of the assignments of error as are properly set forth therein and in support of which any argument is stated or authority cited in appellant’s brief. We find no prejudicial error sufficient to warrant granting a new trial. No abuse of discretion by the trial judge in fixing the amount of the alimony and counsel fees has been shown.

Appeal dismissed.

Judges Campbell and Morris concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 S.E.2d 801, 18 N.C. App. 668, 1973 N.C. App. LEXIS 1974, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vincent-v-vincent-ncctapp-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack