Mackins v. Mackins
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
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
- McArthur v. McArthurSupreme Court of Florida · 1958
- Kruse v. KruseIndiana Court of Appeals · 1984
- Norton v. NortonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985
- Hill v. HillSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1993