Legal Opinion · Dissent

Cunningham v. Cunningham

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided March 5, 1996No. COA94-1179Published

1Dissent

Judge Smith

dissenting.

I disagree with the two central precepts of the majority opinion. I believe we are bound by existing case law, which states with clarity that dependency may be reconsidered at a modification hearing. And, I agree with the trial court’s conclusion that no change of circumstances, as a matter of law, has occurred.

I. Reconsideration of Dependency

It appears that any question concerning reconsideration of dependency was settled by Marks v. Marks, 316 N.C. 447, 461, 342 S.E.2d 859, 867 (1986). Marks is analytically identical to the instant case, in that it involves an alimony…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. In Re the Appeal From the Civil PenaltySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1989
  2. Williams v. WilliamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
  3. Bunn v. BunnSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
  4. Beall v. BeallSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
  5. Walters v. WaltersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983

6 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