Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Mackins v. Mackins

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided May 3, 1994No. 9326SC683Published

1Concurrence

Judge WYNN

concurring.

I fully concur with the majority’s application of Hill v. Hill, 335 N.C. 140, 435 S.E.2d 766 (1993) to the facts of this case. Hill provides that the trial court “ ‘has the discretion to make the modification [of an alimony award] effective as of any ensuing date after a petition to modify is filed.’ ” Hill, 335 N.C. at 145, 435 S.E.2d at 768 (quoting Kruse v. Kruse, 464 N.E.2d 934, 939 (Ind. App. 1984)). Such modification is not retroactive since “ ‘the modification and the whole proceeding in which it is made are referable to the date of the filing of the petition.’ ”…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. McArthur v. McArthurSupreme Court of Florida · 1958
  2. Kruse v. KruseIndiana Court of Appeals · 1984
  3. Norton v. NortonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985
  4. Hill v. HillSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1993

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

Powered by the Exa API