Turning next to the conclusions of law, we observe that, while generally " [c]onclusions of law drawn by the trial court from its findings of fact are reviewable de novo on appeal," id. at 101, 655 S.E.2d at 369, when reviewing the conclusions of law in the instant order, reached in the context of the trial court's exercise of its discretion, we need determine only whether they are the result of a reasoned decision based upon the specific language of N.C.G.S. § 84-4.2. Smith v. Beaufort Cty. Hosp. Ass'n, 141 N.C.App. 203, 210-11, 540 S.E.2d 775, 780 (2000) (stating that section 84-4.2 expressly gives judges discretion summarily to revoke pro hac vice admissions previously allowed and that because the trial court's " conclusion of law is clearly the result of a reasoned decision," the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the revocation), aff'd per curiam, 354 N.C. 212, 552 S.E.2d 139 (2001).           First, the trial court concluded as a matter of law that " [p]ursuant to N.C.G.S. § 84-4.2, [it had] the discretionary authority to summarily revoke the permission granted to Mr. Stein and Mr. Meyer under N.C.G.S. § 84-4.1, on its own motion and in its discretion."

"[I]f [a] finding of fact is essentially a conclusion of law . . . it will be treated as a conclusion of law which is reviewable on appeal." Smith v. Beaufort Cty. Hosp. Ass'n, 141 N.C. App. 203, 214, 540 S.E.2d 775, 782 (2000) (second and third alteration in original) (quoting Bowles Distributing Co. v. Pabst Brewing Co., 69 N.C. App. 341, 344, 348, 317 S.E.2d 684, 686 (1984)), aff'd per curiam, 354 N.C. 212, 552 S.E.2d 139 (2001). Plaintiff-father first argues that the trial court failed to make sufficient conclusions of law regarding the court's jurisdiction over the subject matter, what substantial change in circumstances warranted a change in child custody, or how the modification of the 23 December 2009 custody order would be in the best interests of the minor children.

See White v. White, 312 N.C. 770, 777, 324 S.E.2d 829, 833 (1985) (The reviewing court may find abuse of discretion only if the trial court's actions are “manifestly unsupported by reason ... [or] upon a showing that [the trial court's decision] was so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision.” (citation omitted)); see also Smith v. Beaufort County Hosp. Ass'n, Inc., 141 N.C.App. 203, 210, 540 S.E.2d 775, 780 (2000), aff'd per curiam,354 N.C. 212, 552 S.E.2d 139 (2001). In addition to a showing of arbitrariness, fraud, or collusion, we hold a voluntary association's decision may also be overturned if it did not afford the complaining party procedural due process (notice and an opportunity to be heard).

. Works Comm'n, 237 N.C. 277, 283, 74 S.E.2d 709, 714 (1953) ("We know judicially that it is customary in practice for an attorney to accept service of notice in behalf of his client, and in that way waive service by an officer."); Smith v. Beaufort County Hosp. Ass'n, 141 N.C. App. 203, 211, 540 S.E.2d 775, 780 (2000) (holding that trial court, "on [its] own accord, properly took judicial notice of (1) the number of highly skilled plaintiffs' attorneys engaged in the trial of medical negligence actions in our state as that information is generally known within the jurisdiction of the trial courts of this state, and (2) the number of times [a certain law firm] participated in litigation in North Carolina by relying on information supplied by the North Carolina State Bar Association as that information is capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned"), disc. review denied, 353 N.C. 381, 547 S.E.2d 435, aff'd per curiam, 354 N.C. 212, 552 S.E.2d 139 (2001). We also recognize that the Supreme Court has previously permitted the taking of judicial notice of customary payment practices in other industries.

"A trial court may be reversed for abuse of discretion only upon a showing that its actions are manifestly unsupported by reason." Castle McCulloch, Inc. v. Freedman, 169 N.C. App. 497, 504, 610 S.E.2d 416, 421-22, aff'd, 360 N.C. 57, 620 S.E.2d 674 (2005) (citing Smith v. Beaufort County Hosp. Ass'n, 141 N.C. App. 203, 210, 540 S.E.2d 775, 780 (2000), aff'd, 354 N.C. 212, 552 S.E.2d 139 (2001). According to Defendants, the trial court abused its discretion by "failing to undertake the analysis required" in connection with a motion for attorneys' fees pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-16.1.

" Id. However, this Court has recognized that Goldston "involved litigation that had been ongoing for several years and an attorney who had a national reputation in handling products liability cases against a particular defendant," distinguishing Goldston from a case in which the "litigation is still in its infancy, and plaintiffs' counsel does not hold any unique expertise that cannot be found elsewhere in our state bar." Smith v. Beaufort County Hosp. Ass'n, Inc., 141 N.C. App. 203, 216, 540 S.E.2d 775, 783 (2000), aff'd per curiam, 354 N.C. 212, 552 S.E.2d 139 (2001). In her brief, plaintiff argues further that the trial court's denial of the admission of Attorney Tarver "is in effect a revocation of her admission" since she had previously filed another lawsuit arising from the same events and in which Attorney Tarver was admitted to practice pro hac vice.

Our Court has also held that where “a court's ruling [is] based upon a misapprehension of law, ‘[but] the misapprehension of the law does not affect the result[,] ... the judgment will not be reversed.’ " Smith v. Beaufort County Hosp. Ass'n., 141 N.C.App. 203, 212, 540 S.E.2d 775, 781 (2000) (quoting Bowles Distributing Co. v. PabstBrewing Co., 69 N.C.App. 341, 348, 317 S.E.2d 684, 689 (1984) ), disc. review denied, 353 N.C. 381, 547 S.E.2d 435, aff'd per curiam, 354 N.C. 212, 552 S.E.2d 139 (2001) . Therefore, in this case, even if the trial court's ruling could be characterized as misapprehending the law regarding modification, any misapprehension did not affect the result in the present case. We hold Defendant waived the original closing date and that Plaintiffs had a reasonable time after that date in which to perform.

Our Court has held that where "a court's ruling [is] based upon a misapprehension of law, `[but] the misapprehension of the law does not affect the result[,] . . . the judgment will not be reversed.'" Smith v. Beaufort County Hosp. Ass'n., 141 N.C. App. 203, 212, 540 S.E.2d 775, 781 (2000) (quoting Bowles Distributing Co. v. Pabst Brewing Co., 69 N.C. App. 341, 348, 317 S.E.2d 684, 689 (1984)), disc. review denied, 353 N.C. 381, 547 S.E.2d 435, aff'd per curiam, 354 N.C. 212, 552 S.E.2d 139 (2001). In the present case, Section 2.2 defines the term "use" in part as "[t]he purpose for which a building, structure, or area of land may be arranged or occupied[.

Where "a court's ruling [is] based upon a misapprehension of law, `[but] the misapprehension of the law does not affect the result[,] . . . the judgment will not be reversed.'" Smith v. Beaufort County Hosp. Ass'n., 141 N.C. App. 203, 212, 540 S.E.2d 775, 781 (2000) (quoting Bowles Distributing Co. v. Pabst Brewing Co., 69 N.C. App. 341, 348, 317 S.E.2d 684, 689 (1984)), disc. review denied, 353 N.C. 381, 547 S.E.2d 435, aff'd per curiam, 354 N.C. 212, 552 S.E.2d 139 (2001). "[A]ppellate review of findings of fact and conclusions of law made by a trial [court], without a jury, is limited to a determination of whether there is competent evidence to support [the trial court's] findings of fact and whether, in light of such findings, [the trial court's] conclusions of law were proper."

An exception to this rule allows a subsequent trial judge to rehear an issue and enter a ruling “if there has been a material change in the circumstances of the parties and the initial ruling was one which was addressed to the discretion of the trial judge." Atkinson v. Atkinson, 132 N.C.App. 82, 88, 510 S.E.2d 178, 181 (citing Madry, 106 N.C.App. at 38, 415 S.E.2d at 77), rev'd on other grounds, 350 N.C. 590, 516 S.E.2d 381 (1999) ; see alsoSmith v. Beaufort County Hosp. Ass'n, 141 N.C.App. 203, 218, 540 S.E.2d 775, 784 (2000) (Wynn, J., dissenting) (“In other words, there must be some basis for changing the [grounds underlying the order in question]; otherwise, I see no basis for one court modifying or overruling another equivalent court."), aff'd per curiam, 354 N.C. 212, 552 S.E.2d 139 (2001) .           Here, neither party disputes the fact that the QDRO filed on 17 October 2005 and the amended version filed on 27 October 2005 changed the terms of the QDRO entered by a different trial judge on 4 April 2005.