Court Opinion

ID: 9590452
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:55:01.405374+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:03.230400
License: Public Domain

*655Judge Wells
concurring.
The dissent in this case emphasizes that the approval by Clerk Nelms of attorney’s fees to respondent’s law firm lacked the “specificity” required by G.S. § 28A-23-4. The issue of “specificity” was stipulated by the parties to be the subject of a separate proceeding and was not attempted to be settled in this case. The question as to attorney’s fees presented in this case was not how much was proper, but whether any attorney’s fee was properly allowed. It being undisputed that Clerk Nelms exercised her judgment to allow an attorney’s fee, Judge Hobgood properly resolved that issue in favor of respondent.