Legal Opinion

Seaborn v. Seaborn

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided March 16, 1977No. 7610DC768PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BROCK, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff contends and the trial court so found, that the consent judgment constituted a full and final settlement of all matters between the parties. As such, the entire judgment is immune from further judicial modification. We disagree.

Modification is improper in a consent judgment which completely settles all property and marital rights between the parties “and which does not award alimony within the accepted definition of that term.” Bunn v. Bunn, 262 N.C. 67, 136 S.E. 2d 240 (1964). In the present case alimony within the accepted definition of the term was awarded. The…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Bunn v. BunnSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
  2. Brooks v. BrooksCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1971
  3. Parker v. ParkerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1972

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. White v. WhiteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
  2. Roberts v. RobertsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1978
  3. Bowes v. BowesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1979
  4. White v. WhiteCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1978
  5. Collins v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1979

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API