Legal Opinion

In Re Estate of Peebles

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided March 21, 1995No. 9422SC374PublishedCited by 7 opinions

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

  1. State v. EasonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1991
  2. Stachlowski v. StachSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1991
  3. Harris v. HarrisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
  4. Hodges v. . StewartSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
  5. Hill v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1983

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Durling v. KingCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2001
  2. In Re the Will of DurhamCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2010
  3. In Re the Will of MasonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2005
  4. Bryant v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2003
  5. Daniel v. MooreCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2004

2 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