Hazard v. Hazard

CLARK, Judge.

The defendant makes two arguments: First, that the contract was illegal and therefore unenforceable, and, second, that defendant is excused by impossibility of performance. We find neither argument convincing.

It does not appear that defendant’s illegal contract argument is properly before this Court on appeal because illegality was not pled as an affirmative defense, G.S. 1A-1, Rule 8(c), and there was no exception to the conclusion of the trial court that “[a]s between the parties [the judgment] was a contract. . . Rule 10(a), N.C. Rules of Appellate Procedure. Nevertheless, it…