In Re Estate of Peebles
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
EAGLES, Judge.
I
Caveator argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion to set aside the consent judgment because it was void. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 60(b)(4) allows a trial court “[o]n motion and upon such terms as are just, . . . [to] relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding . . . [if] the [¡judgment is void.” The trial court’s decision on a Rule 60 motion is discretionary, and will be reversed only upon a showing of an abuse of discretion. Harris v. Harris, 307 N.C. 684, 687, 300 S.E.2d 369, 372 (1983).
Caveator argues that the consent…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- State v. EasonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1991
- Stachlowski v. StachSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1991
- Harris v. HarrisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
- Hodges v. . StewartSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
- Hill v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1983
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Durling v. KingCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2001
- In Re the Will of DurhamCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2010
- In Re the Will of MasonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2005
- Bryant v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2003
- Daniel v. MooreCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2004
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.