Court Opinion

ID: 9589466
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:44:52.633487+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:19:26.075110
License: Public Domain

WYNN, Judge,
concurring.
I agree that the trial court properly determined that Mr. John’s Amended Objection to GAL was not. warranted by existing law or good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law. Since only one ground is needed to support a Rule 11 sanction, we need not further determine if the Amended Objection to GAL was filed for an improper purpose. Dodd v. Steele, 114 N.C. App. 632, 635, 442 S.E.2d 363, 365 (1994).
I further emphasize that in determining whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to hear testimony from Mr. Johns’ witnesses, it is significant that Mr. Johns and Rice Law did not proffer their evidence to either the trial court or this court. Without a proffer of the evidence that would have been presented, nothing in the record shows that the trial court abused its discretion in this *215matter. See Miller v. Forsyth Mem. Hosp., Inc., 174 N.C. App. 619, 621, 625 S.E.2d, 115, 166 (2005) (“Our Supreme Court has stated that for a party to preserve the issue of the exclusion of evidence or testimony for appellate review, its importance must be made to appear in the record and a specific offer of proof is required, unless the significance of the evidence is discernable from the record.”)