result of competent inquiry in North Carolina

2026A trial court abuses its discretion if it “failed to comply with the statute” governing equitable distribution, or if its actions were manifestly “unsupported by reason and could not have been a result of competent inquiry.” Wiencek-Adams v. Adams, 331 N.C. 688, 691 , 417 S.E.2d 449, 451 (1992) (citations omitted); see also N.C.

2026“Only a finding that the judgment was unsupported by reason and could not have been a result of competent inquiry or a finding that the trial judge failed to comply with the statute[] . . . will establish an abuse of discretion.” Id. (citations omitted).

2009An abuse of discretion occurs when “the trial court’s decision was unsupported by reason and could not have been a result of competent inquiry.” McIntosh v. McIntosh, 184 N.C.

2008An abuse of discretion is found only when “the trial court’s decision was ‘unsupported by reason and could not have been the result of competent inquiry.’ ” McIntosh v. McIntosh, 184 N.C.

2013An abuse of discretion exists when the record shows that the trial court’s ruling was so arbitrary that it “ ‘could not have been a result of competent inquiry.’ ” Morris v. Gray, 181 N.C.App. 552, 556 , 640 S.E.2d 737, 740 (2007)(quoting Wiencek-Adams v. Adams, 331 N.C. 688, 691 , 417 S.E.2d 449, 451 (1992)).

2013An abuse of discretion exists when the record shows that the trial court’s ruling was so arbitrary that it “ ‘could not have been a result of competent inquiry.’ ” Morris v. Gray, 181 N.C.App. 552, 556 , 640 S.E.2d 737, 740 (2007)(quoting Wiencek-Adams v. Adams, 331 N.C. 688, 691 , 417 S.E.2d 449, 451 (1992)).

2014App. 438, 441 , 567 S.E.2d 834, 837 (2002) (citing White v. White, 312 N.C. 770, 777 , 324 S.E.2d 829, 833 (1985)). *231 “Only a finding that the judgment was unsupported by reason and could not have been a result of competent inquiry, or a finding that the trial judge failed to comply with the statute ... will establish an abuse of discretion.” Wieneck-Adams, 331 N.C. at 691 , 417 S.E.2d at 451 (internal citations omitted).

2014App. 438, 441 , 567 S.E.2d 834, 837 (2002) (citing White v. White, 312 N.C. 770, 777 , 324 S.E.2d 829, 833 (1985)). *231 “Only a finding that the judgment was unsupported by reason and could not have been a result of competent inquiry, or a finding that the trial judge failed to comply with the statute ... will establish an abuse of discretion.” Wieneck-Adams, 331 N.C. at 691 , 417 S.E.2d at 451 (internal citations omitted).

2026Likewise, “the standard of review of a trial court’s denial of a Rule 60(b) motion is abuse of discretion.” Davis v. Davis, 360 N.C. 518, 523 (2006).

2025“Only a finding that the judgment was unsupported by reason and could not have been a result of competent inquiry, or a finding that the trial judge failed to comply with the statute will establish an abuse of discretion.” Sarno v. Sarno, 255 N.C.

2025Moreover, these findings—as well as those detailing Father’s previous noncompliance with court orders in this matter—support the trial court’s determination that “Mother has insufficient means to defray the entire cost of the litigation in relation to her claims.” Father is unable to show that the award of attorney’s fees “was unsupported by reason and could not have been a result of competent inquiry.” Sarno, 255 N.C.

2015"Ultimately, the court's equitable distribution award is reviewed for an abuse of discretion and will be reversed only upon a showing that it [is] so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision." Brackney, 199 N.C.App. at 381 , 682 S.E.2d at 405 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Wiencek-Adams v. Adams, 331 N.C. 688 , 691, 417 S.E.2d 449 , 451 (1992) ("Only a finding that the judgment was unsupported by reason and could not have been a result of competent inquiry, or a finding that the trial judge failed to comply with [ N.C.

2015"Ultimately, the court's equitable distribution award is reviewed for an abuse of discretion and will be reversed only upon a showing that it [is] so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision." Brackney, 199 N.C.App. at 381 , 682 S.E.2d at 405 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Wiencek-Adams v. Adams, 331 N.C. 688 , 691, 417 S.E.2d 449 , 451 (1992) ("Only a finding that the judgment was unsupported by reason and could not have been a result of competent inquiry, or a finding that the trial judge failed to comply with [ N.C.

2014App. 438, 441 , 567 S.E.2d 834, 837 (2002) (citing White v. White, 312 N.C. 770, 777 , 324 S.E.2d 829, 833 (1985)). *231 “Only a finding that the judgment was unsupported by reason and could not have been a result of competent inquiry, or a finding that the trial judge failed to comply with the statute ... will establish an abuse of discretion.” Wieneck-Adams, 331 N.C. at 691 , 417 S.E.2d at 451 (internal citations omitted).

2014“An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision was unsupported by reason and could not have been a result of competent inquiry.” Leggett v. AAA Cooper Transp., Inc., 198 N.C.

2014App. 96, 101 , 678 S.E.2d 757, 761 (2009) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

2013In our review, “we consider not whether we might disagree with the trial court, but whether the trial court’s actions are fairly supported by the record.” State v. Whaley, 362 N.C. 156, 160 , 655 S.E.2d 388, 390 (2008)(citation omitted). ' Plaintiff argues that: (1) the trial court committed error by failing to find the opinion testimony of Plaintiff’s expert witnesses regarding Dr. Petty’s allegedly negligent interpretation of the 27 May 2008 x-ray relevant under Rule 401 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence; (2) the trial court abused its discretion by ruling that the probative value of t

2013In our review, “we consider not whether we might disagree with the trial court, but whether the trial court’s actions are fairly supported by the record.” State v. Whaley, 362 N.C. 156, 160 , 655 S.E.2d 388, 390 (2008)(citation omitted). ' Plaintiff argues that: (1) the trial court committed error by failing to find the opinion testimony of Plaintiff’s expert witnesses regarding Dr. Petty’s allegedly negligent interpretation of the 27 May 2008 x-ray relevant under Rule 401 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence; (2) the trial court abused its discretion by ruling that the probative value of t

2009App. 100, 103 , 643 S.E.2d 620, 622 (2007). *353 Under this standard, a trial court may have abused its discretion when the record shows that its ruling was so arbitrary that it “ ‘could not have been a result of competent inquiry.’ ” Morris v. Gray, 181 N.C.

2007When ruling on a 60(b) motion, "[t]he trial judge has the duty to make findings of fact, which are deemed conclusive on appeal if there is any evidence on which to base such findings." Briley v. Farabow, 348 N.C. 537, 547 , 501 S.E.2d 649, 655 (1998) (citing Hoglen v. James, 38 N.C.

2007When ruling on a 60(b) motion, "[t]he trial judge has the duty to make findings of fact, which are deemed conclusive on appeal if there is any evidence on which to base such findings." Briley v. Farabow, 348 N.C. 537, 547 , 501 S.E.2d 649, 655 (1998) (citing Hoglen v. James, 38 N.C.