Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

260 N.C. 223

132 S.E.2d 342

Rock v. Rock

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided September 18, 1963

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1963-09-18

Relies on Wright v. . Wright · Tiedemann v. . Tiedemann

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1963-09-18

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently July 2002

11 state decisions

5019631970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1 The facts found by the judge are set out in the order and are sufficient to support it. There was evidence at the hearing tending to support the findings of fact.

¶2 All assignments of error have been abandoned except Nos. 8 and 11 which challenge the power of the court to enter an order modifying the previous order unless predicated upon a finding of a material change in the •circumstances of the parties.

¶3 It is conceded by the appellee that a change of condition and circumstances must be established before an order for the support of children and permanent alimony can be modified. However, the amount the defendant is required to pay for the support of his child and for reasonable subsistence of the plaintiff pendente lite and for compensation to her counsel, is determinable by the judge in the exercise of his sound discretion. And in the absence of an abuse of discretion, his decision is not reviewable. Tiedemann v. Tiedemann, 204 N.C. 682, 169 S.E. 422; Wright v. Wright, 216 N.C. 693, 6 S.E. 2d 555.

¶4 An order for subsistence pendente lite may be modified at any time before the trial on application of either party. G.S. 50-16.

¶5 The order entered below is

¶6 Affirmed.

/260/nc/223 · .json · Public domain