Burwell v. Wilkerson

J. H. BURWELL, JR., Administrator of the Estate of JAMES M. WILKERSON, Deceased v. WILLIAM A. WILKERSON, Single; OSSIE W. MILLER and Husband, FREDDIE MILLER; ARTHUR WILKERSON and Wife, JANE WILKERSON; DOVIE W. WILKINS and Husband, J. D. WILKINS; SAMUEL H. WILKERSON and Wife, MARGIE WILKERSON; HELEN L. WILKERSON, Widow; FRED L. WILKERSON, JR., and Wife, JEROLINE WILKERSON; LINDA W. THOMAS and Husband, RONALD THOMAS; OLLIE DAVIS WILKERSON, Widow; ESTHER W. NEDD and Husband, HUBERT C. NEDD; DORIS W. PROVIDENCE, Single; JOHNETTA W. LAMB and Husband, THOMAS W. LAMB; THOMAS E. WILKERSON, Single; ALICE W. WILSON and Husband, PAUL WILSON; GLENN E. WILKERSON, Single; JAMES A. WILKERSON, Single; MELVIN T. WILKERSON, Single; LARRY D. WILKERSON, Single; SHEILA Y. WILKERSON, Single; JAMES A. WILKERSON and Wife, IDA WILKERSON; PALMIRA W. BRADFORD and Husband, JACK BRADFORD; KAY WILKERSON, Single; VERLA WILKERSON, Widow; KIMBERLY JOYCE WILKERSON, Single; DIEDRA COLLETTE WILKERSON, Single; COREY KING WILKERSON, Widow; And O. M. YORK, Trustee

Burwell v. Wilkerson, 226 S.E.2d 220 (N.C. Ct. App. 1976)

Court: Court of Appeals of North Carolina · State Appellate Courts
Decided: July 7, 1976
Docket: No. 7629SC126
Judges: Martin, Brock, Britt
Citations: 226 S.E.2d 22030 N.C. App. 1101976 N.C. App. LEXIS 2159

Cited by 12 1 descriptions by later courts

Syllabus

Executors and Administrators 15 — sale of land to make assets — motion to set aside confirmation The trial court did not err in the denial of appellants' motions under Rule 60 to vacate and set aside orders of confirmation of a sale of realty to make assets to pay debts of an estate.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion — Martin

MARTIN, Judge.

Respondent appellants contend that the trial court erred in denying their motions to set aside and vacate the 9 May 1975 orders of confirmation. We find no merit to this assignment of error.

As Justice Copeland, speaking for our Supreme Court, recently stated in Sink v. Easter, 288 N.C. 183, 198 , 217 S.E. 2d 532 (1975), “ ... & motion for relief under Rule 60(b) is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and appellate review is limited to determining whether the Court abused its discretion.” Here, a careful and critical review of the trial court’s order denying respondents’ Rule 60 motion indicates that the findings of fact and conclusions of law are amply supported by the evidence, and we find no evidence whatsoever indicating the trial court abused its discretion and authority.

We have reviewed respondents’ other contentions and find them also to be without merit.

The order below is Affirmed.

Chief Judge Brock and Judge Britt concur.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

(“[A] motion for relief under Rule 60(b) is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and appellate review is limited to determining whether the Court abused its discretion.” (quotation omitted))

Scoggins v. Jacobs, 610 S.E.2d 428 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005)

Cited by 12 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Chance v. Henderson518 S.E.2d 780 (N.C. Ct. App. 1999)
City Finance Co. of Goldsboro, Inc. v. Boykin358 S.E.2d 83 (N.C. Ct. App. 1987)
Hoglen v. James248 S.E.2d 901 (N.C. Ct. App. 1978)
Kavanau Real Estate Trust v. Debnam263 S.E.2d 595 (N.C. 1980)
Harrington v. Harrington248 S.E.2d 460 (N.C. Ct. App. 1978)
Trent v. River Place, LLC632 S.E.2d 529 (N.C. Ct. App. 2006)

Most recent

Trent v. River Place, LLC632 S.E.2d 529 (N.C. Ct. App. 2006)
Scoggins v. Jacobs610 S.E.2d 428 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005)
Chance v. Henderson518 S.E.2d 780 (N.C. Ct. App. 1999)
PYA/Monarch, Inc. v. Ray Lackey Enterprises, Inc.385 S.E.2d 170 (N.C. Ct. App. 1989)
Jorgensen v. Seeman383 S.E.2d 702 (N.C. Ct. App. 1989)
Alexvale Furniture, Inc. v. Alexander & Alexander of the Carolinas385 S.E.2d 796 (N.C. Ct. App. 1989)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Sink v. Easter, 217 S.E.2d 532 (N.C. 1975)	138

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list