# Matthews v. Watkins

> Court of Appeals of North Carolina · November 1, 1988 · 91 N.C. App. 640

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9590452

## Case

- **Full name:** BILLY MATTHEWS, JACK MATTHEWS, LEONARD MATTHEWS, JOSEPHINE BRIDGERS, ELIZABETH BRADLEY, BARTHOLOMEW KIMBALL, MARGARET JONES FOUNTAIN, HUGH SHERROD, ROM SHERROD, NELL ANDERSON, DAPHNE LILES, MILDRED RODGERS, AND ELIZABETH MARSHBURN, Petitioners-Appellants v. WILLIAM T. WATKINS, EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF ANNIE MAE S. DAVIS, Respondent-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of North Carolina
- **Decided:** November 1, 1988
- **Citations:** 91 N.C. App. 640; 373 S.E.2d 133; 1988 N.C. App. LEXIS 910
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Wells
- **Judges:** Parker, Wells, Orr
- **Cited by:** 5 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/9590452

## Opinion text

*655 Judge 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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9590452. Public record. Not legal advice.