# Johns v. Johns

> Court of Appeals of North Carolina · February 3, 2009 · 195 N.C. App. 201

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9589466

## Case

- **Full name:** DOUGLAS DALE JOHNS, Plaintiff v. JANICE MARIE JOHNS, Defendant; JESSICA JOHNS, Plaintiff v. DOUGLAS DALE JOHNS, Defendant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of North Carolina
- **Decided:** February 3, 2009
- **Citations:** 195 N.C. App. 201; 672 S.E.2d 34; 2009 N.C. App. LEXIS 110
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Wynn
- **Judges:** Geer, Calabria, Wynn
- **Cited by:** 10 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9589466

## Opinion text

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 *215 matter. 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.”)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9589466. Public record. Not legal advice.