Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Brandt v. Brandt

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided December 30, 1988No. 8810DC173Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Judge GREENE

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

While I agree with the rest of the majority’s decision, I dissent from its holding the trial court did not err in granting plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. I would vacate the entry of summary judgment and remand for trial on the issue raised in the complaint.

The court’s summary judgment order characterizes the payments due under the Agreement as “alimony.” Alimony is defined in Section 50-16.1(1) as “payment for the support and maintenance of a spouse.” N.C.G.S. Sec. 50-16.1(1) (1987) (emphasis added). However, while the relevant…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Hartman v. HartmanCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1986

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

Powered by the Exa API