Court Opinion

ID: 9573253
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:51:05.859306+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:39:12.281078
License: Public Domain

Judge MITCHELL
concurring.
During oral arguments before us in this case, we were informed by counsel for both parties that the defendant and her husband changed their circumstances by moving to North Carolina and entering the practice of law here after the entry of the judgment of the trial court before us on appeal. This change in the circumstances of the parties could not, of course, have been made known to or considered by the trial court and is not reflected in the record before us. Although I concur in the opinion in this case, I would additionally point out that nothing in the opinion should be construed as limiting the right of either party to return to the trial court in an effort to show changed circumstances arising after the entry of the trial court’s order of 4 October 1978 and affecting the welfare of the minor children of the parties. See Thomas v. Thomas, 259 N.C. 461, 130 S.E. 2d 871 (1963); Blankenship v. Blankenship, 256 N.C. 638, 124 S.E. 2d 857 (1962); Owen v. Owen, 31 N.C. App. 230, 229 S.E. 2d 49 (1976).