NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 4 January 2011
|
|
- Christal Moody
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 4 January 2011 FIRST MOUNT VERNON INDUSTRIAL LOAN ASSOCIATION, a Virginia Industrial Loan Association, Plaintiff, v. Craven County No. 08 CVS 797 PRODEV XXII, LLC, a Virginia Limited Liability Company, JONATHAN E. FRIESEN, Substitute Trustee, NORRIS G. DILLAHUNT, SR. a/k/a NORRIS G. DILLAHUNT and HELEN M. DILLAHUNT, Defendants. Appeal by non-party Norris G. Dillahunt, Jr. and Josietta Dillahunt from order entered 20 July 2009 by Judge Benjamin G. Alford and orders entered 15 October 2009 by Judge Jack W. Jenkins in Craven County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 19 August The Law Offices of Lonnie M. Player, Jr., PLLC, by Lonnie M. Player, Jr., for plaintiff-appellee. Mills & Economos, L.L.P., by Larry C. Economos, for Norris G. Dillahunt, Jr. and Josietta Dillahunt, appellants. No brief filed on behalf of defendants. GEER, Judge. Non-parties Norris G. Dillahunt, Jr. and Josietta Dillahunt (the "Junior Dillahunts") appeal from orders denying their motion
2 -2- to intervene and for a preliminary injunction and from an order granting partial summary judgment to plaintiff First Mount Vernon Industrial Loan Association ("FMV"). Because res judicata bars the claims that the Junior Dillahunts proposed to assert in this action upon intervention, we hold that the trial court properly denied the Junior Dillahunts' motion to intervene. Our decision affirming the denial of the motion to intervene moots consideration of the Junior Dillahunts' remaining arguments. Facts On 21 September 2006, FMV made a loan to defendant ProDev XXII, LLC in the amount of $275, The loan was secured by property located at 169 Jasper Drive, New Bern, North Carolina that was owned by defendant ProDev ("the primary property"). In addition, Norris G. Dillahunt, Sr. and Helen M. Dillahunt (the "Senior Dillahunts") guaranteed the loan that guaranty was secured by two additional tracts of property in Craven County owned by the Senior Dillahunts ("the guaranty property"). On 6 May 2008, FMV filed a complaint against ProDev, Jonathan E. Friesen (as substitute trustee for the two deeds of trust executed in favor of FMV), and the Senior Dillahunts, alleging that ProDev had not made the required payments on the note and was in default, leaving an unpaid balance in the amount of $391, FMV's First Claim for Relief sought judicial foreclosure on the primary property, its Second Claim for Relief sought judicial foreclosure on the guaranty property, and the Third Claim for Relief sought nullification of liens on the guaranty property that
3 -3- FMV alleged Norris G. Dillahunt, Sr. had fraudulently obtained in order to encumber the guaranty property and protect it from legitimate creditors. On 8 July 2008, Norris G. Dillahunt, Sr. filed an answer pro se not only on his own behalf, but also, purportedly, on behalf of ProDev and his wife, Helen M. Dillahunt. On 15 July 2008, FMV filed a motion to strike the answers of ProDev and Helen M. Dillahunt on the grounds that Norris G. Dillahunt, Sr. was not an attorney and, therefore, could not represent them. On 28 July 2008, Helen M. Dillahunt filed her own answer pro se. On 13 August 2008, the trial court allowed FMV's motion to strike. On 3 November 2008, ProDev filed its own answer to FMV's complaint that admitted the material allegations of the complaint. Meanwhile, on 8 August 2008, the Junior Dillahunts filed an action, arising out of the 21 September 2006 loan from FMV to ProDev, in Wake County Superior Court ("the collateral attack action") against FMV, ProDev, and several other defendants, asserting claims for relief for fraud, negligence, unfair and deceptive trade practices, predatory lending, usury, and unjust enrichment. The Junior Dillahunts alleged that the purpose of the loan to ProDev was to finance their personal residence located on the primary property. The Junior Dillahunts further alleged that, at the loan closing, the documents they signed included, without their knowledge, a general warranty deed conveying the primary property to ProDev as part of a fraudulent scheme to divest them of title to their home.
4 -4- On 8 August 2008, the Junior Dillahunts obtained a temporary restraining order from the Wake County Superior Court barring FMV from foreclosing on the primary property. On 14 August 2008, however, the temporary restraining order was dissolved as improvidently granted, and the trial court ordered the Junior Dillahunts to pay FMV damages arising from the improperly-sought temporary restraining order. Four days later, the collateral attack action was transferred to Craven County Superior Court. Subsequently, on 15 April 2009, the trial court dismissed the action with prejudice pursuant to N.C.R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute. This Court affirmed the order of dismissal in Dillahunt v. First Mount Vernon Indus. Loan Ass'n, N.C. App.,, S.E.2d, (Dec. 21, 2010) (unpublished). On 22 May 2009, FMV filed a motion in this action for partial summary judgment on its first and second claims for relief, seeking a judgment permitting FMV to foreclose on the primary and guaranty properties. The trial court administrator calendared the motion for a hearing on Monday, 29 June On Friday, 26 June 2009, the Junior Dillahunts filed a motion to intervene as a matter of right under Rule 24 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The Junior Dillahunts also served a notice of hearing adding the motion to the calendar for 29 June Pursuant to Rule 24(c), the Junior Dillahunts attached to their motion to intervene a pleading setting forth claims against FMV and ProDev that they would assert if allowed to intervene. The
5 -5- pleading alleged that ProDev acquired title to the primary property through misrepresentation, fraud, and breach of its duty of trust and confidence; that the loan by FMV to ProDev was usurious; that FMV engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices; and that the Junior Dillahunts were entitled to a preliminary injunction enjoining FMV from foreclosing upon the primary property. For relief, the Junior Dillahunts sought the imposition of a constructive trust on the primary property, damages, and a preliminary injunction. On 29 June 2009, the Junior Dillahunts also filed the affidavit of Norris G. Dillahunt, Jr. opposing the summary judgment motion and supporting the motion to intervene and the motion for a preliminary injunction. At the hearing on 29 June 2009, before Judge Benjamin G. Alford, Larry C. Economos, who was representing both the Senior Dillahunts and the Junior Dillahunts, made a motion to continue the hearing based on the complexity of the action and the fact that he had only been hired one week before the hearing. The trial court denied the motion to continue. The trial court declined to hear the Junior Dillahunts' motion to intervene on the ground that it was not timely filed. The trial court indicated, however, that this ruling was without prejudice to the Junior Dillahunts' calendaring the motion for hearing at a later date upon proper notice. The trial court then proceeded to hear FMV's motion for summary judgment. On 20 July 2009, the trial court entered an order granting partial summary judgment to FMV on its first claim for relief for judicial foreclosure on the primary
6 -6- property, but denied summary judgment as to the second claim for relief involving the guaranty property. On 8 September 2009, the Junior Dillahunts filed a notice of appeal from the partial summary judgment order. On 16 September 2009, FMV filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that the Junior Dillahunts were not parties to the action or aggrieved parties and, therefore, had no standing to appeal. On 5 October 2009, Judge Jack W. Jenkins heard the motion to dismiss together with the Junior Dillahunts' motion to intervene and motion for preliminary injunction. On 15 October 2009, the trial court entered three orders resolving each of the pending motions. The court dismissed the Junior Dillahunts' appeal of the 20 July 2009 order of partial summary judgment on the basis that they were not aggrieved parties in interest. The trial court denied the Junior Dillahunts' motion to intervene on two grounds. The court first concluded that the proposed intervenors' claims were barred by res judicata since they were identical to those pled in the Junior Dillahunts' collateral attack action that had been dismissed with prejudice under Rule 41(b). The trial court also determined that the Junior Dillahunts were not real parties in interest. Lastly, the trial court denied the Junior Dillahunts' motion for a preliminary injunction both because they were not real parties in interest and because they had failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits. On 16 October 2009, the Junior Dillahunts filed a notice of appeal from the order dismissing their appeal, the order denying
7 -7- their motion to intervene, and the order denying a preliminary injunction. On 13 November 2009, this Court entered the following order: The petitions filed in this cause by Norris G. Dillahunt, Jr., and Josietta Dillahunt (hereinafter 'petitioners') on 16 October 2009 and 26 October 2009 and designated 'Petition For Writ Of Supersedeas Under [R]ule 23' and 'Petition For Writ of Certiorari', respectively, are allowed as follows: Because the trial court lacked authority to dismiss petitioners' appeal from the 20 July 2009 order on the basis petitioners are not aggrieved parties, a writ of certiorari is hereby issued to review the 20 July 2009 order of Judge Benjamin G. Alford granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. That appeal shall be brought forward together with petitioners' appeal from to [sic] the orders entered in this cause on 15 October Furthermore, all further proceedings in this cause, including the foreclosure sale originally scheduled for 19 October 2009, are hereby stayed pending the outcome of the appeal contingent upon petitioners filling [sic] the undertaking required by N.C. Gen. Stat in the amount determined by the trial court to be appropriate. Discussion We first address the Junior Dillahunts' appeal of the trial court's denial of their motion to intervene. This appeal is interlocutory since FMV's second and third claims for relief remain pending. See Howerton v. Grace Hosp., Inc., 124 N.C. App. 199, 201, 476 S.E.2d 440, 442 (1996) (explaining that order "is interlocutory if it is made during the pendency of an action and does not dispose of the case but requires further action by the trial court in order to finally determine the entire controversy").
8 -8- Generally, "there is no right of immediate appeal from interlocutory orders and judgments." Goldston v. Am. Motors Corp., 326 N.C. 723, 725, 392 S.E.2d 735, 736 (1990). An interlocutory order may be appealed in only two circumstances: (1) If the trial court "pursuant to N.C.R. Civ. P. 54(b), enters a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties and certifies that there is no just reason to delay the appeal," High Rock Lake Partners, LLC v. N.C. Dep't of Transp., N.C. App.,, 693 S.E.2d 361, 366, disc. review denied, 364 N.C. 325, 700 S.E.2d 753 (2010), or (2) if "the interlocutory order being appealed affect[s] a right of the appellant which is a substantial one, the deprivation of which will potentially result in injury to the appellant if the order is not reviewed before final judgment," Ratchford v. C.C. Mangum Inc., 150 N.C. App. 197, 200, 564 S.E.2d 245, 247 (2002). This Court's analysis of whether the appellant has shown the existence of a substantial right "'is not defined by fixed rules applicable to all cases of a certain type, but rather is based on an individual determination of the facts and procedural context presented by each case.'" High Rock Lake Partners, N.C. App. at, 693 S.E.2d at 367 (quoting Boyce & Isley, PLLC v. Cooper, 169 N.C. App. 572, , 611 S.E.2d 175, 176 (2005)). This Court has previously held that the circumstances of a case may be such that the denial of a motion to intervene is immediately appealable as affecting a substantial right. See, e.g., id. at, 693 S.E.2d at 367 ("We believe, however, that the
9 -9- trial court's denial of Dolven's motion to intervene or be joined as a party affects a substantial right that would be lost absent appellate review prior to a final determination on the merits."); Alford v. Davis, 131 N.C. App. 214, 216, 505 S.E.2d 917, 919 (1998) (in wrongful death action arising out of death of child, holding that order denying motion to intervene as of right filed by physician and his employer who treated child affected substantial right); United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. Simpson, 126 N.C. App. 393, 395, 485 S.E.2d 337, 339 (holding that order denying motion to intervene affected proposed intervenors' substantial rights), disc. review denied, 347 N.C. 141, 492 S.E.2d 37 (1997). Because requiring the Junior Dillahunts to wait to appeal until after entry of a final judgment in this action could cause them to lose any opportunity to obtain a constructive trust and return of title to the primary property the focus of the Junior Dillahunts' claims the order denying the motion to intervene affects a substantial right that they would lose absent an immediate appeal. See In re Green, 27 N.C. App. 555, 557, 219 S.E.2d 552, 553 (1975) ("[A]fter confirmation of a judicial sale, the purchaser becomes the equitable owner of the property, and the sale then may be set aside only for 'mistake, fraud, or collusion.'" (quoting Becker County Sand & Gravel Co. v. Taylor, 269 N.C. 617, 620, 153 S.E.2d 19, 21 (1967))), disc. review denied, 289 N.C. 140, 220 S.E.2d 798 (1976). The appeal from the denial of the motion to intervene is, therefore, properly before us.
10 -10- The denial of a motion to intervene as of right, brought under Rule 24(a)(2), is reviewed de novo by this Court. Harvey Fertilizer & Gas Co. v. Pitt County, 153 N.C. App. 81, 89, 568 S.E.2d 923, 928 (2002). In this case, the trial court's first basis for denying the motion to intervene was res judicata. Res judicata is "a procedural question of law to be reviewed de novo" by this Court. Bluebird Corp. v. Aubin, 188 N.C. App. 671, 679, 657 S.E.2d 55, 62, disc. review denied, 362 N.C. 679, 669 S.E.2d 741 (2008). "The essential elements of res judicata are: (1) a final judgment on the merits in a prior suit; (2) an identity of the cause of action in the prior suit and the present suit; and (3) an identity of parties or their privies in both suits." Bryant v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 130 N.C. App. 135, 138, 502 S.E.2d 58, 61, disc. review denied, 349 N.C. 228, 515 S.E.2d 700 (1998). The doctrine of res judicata extends "not only to matters actually determined but also to other matters which in the exercise of due diligence could have been presented for determination in the prior action." Gaither Corp. v. Skinner, 241 N.C. 532, , 85 S.E.2d 909, 911 (1955). The trial court based its conclusion that the Junior Dillahunts' proposed claims would be barred by res judicata on the fact that those claims were essentially identical to those asserted in the collateral attack action that was dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The Junior Dillahunts do not dispute that the first and third elements of res
11 -11- judicata were met at the time their motion to intervene was denied. The Rule 41(b) dismissal of the collateral attack action constituted a final judgment on the merits in a prior action. See C.F.R. Foods, Inc. v. Randolph Dev. Co., 107 N.C. App. 584, 588, 421 S.E.2d 386, 388 (holding "'[d]ismissal with prejudice pursuant to a Rule 41(b) motion is a judgment on the merits, subject to the usual rules of res judicata'" (quoting Progressive Sales, Inc. v. Williams, Willeford, Boger, Grady & Davis, 86 N.C. App. 51, 55, 356 S.E.2d 372, 375 (1987))), disc. review denied, 333 N.C. 166, 424 S.E.2d 906 (1992). We have since affirmed that order. As for the third element, the Junior Dillahunts pursued their claims against the same parties (FMV and ProDev) in both the collateral attack action and the proposed intervenor claims. With respect to the second element the identity of the causes of action the Junior Dillahunts point to the fact that they sought a preliminary injunction in the proposed intervenor claims and argue that they did not include a preliminary injunction claim in the collateral attack action. They acknowledge, however, that the only purpose of the preliminary injunction was to keep their claims alive by preventing foreclosure during the pendency of the appeal of the Rule 41(b) dismissal of the collateral attack action. Their argument regarding res judicata hinges on this Court's reversing the Rule 41(b) dismissal. As this Court has affirmed that dismissal in Dillahunt, N.C. App. at, S.E.2d at, and the Junior Dillahunts have offered no reason why that dismissal should not bar their proposed claims on
12 -12- intervention, we affirm the trial court's denial of the motion to intervene. 1 We next turn to the Junior Dillahunts' argument that the trial court erred in not ruling on the motion to intervene prior to ruling on the motion for partial summary judgment. "The trial court's determination of the sequence in which motions will be heard is reviewed on an abuse of discretion standard." Leverette v. Labor Works Int'l, LLC, 180 N.C. App. 102, 107, 636 S.E.2d 258, 262 (2006), disc. review denied, 361 N.C. 694, 652 S.E.2d 646 (2007). We cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in declining to rule on the motion to intervene on the grounds that it was untimely. The Junior Dillahunts served their motion Thursday, filed it on Friday, and sought to have it heard on Monday. Rule 6(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure mandates that "[a] written motion, other than one which may be heard ex parte, and notice of the hearing thereof shall be served not later than five days before the time specified for the hearing, unless a different period is fixed by these rules or by order of the court." (Emphasis added.) Because this time period is less than five days, weekends are not included in counting the five days. N.C.R. Civ. P. 6(a). The Junior Dillahunts' motion to intervene thus violated Rule 6(d). 1 Because we have upheld the trial court's conclusion that the proposed claims would be barred by res judicata, we do not express any opinion on whether the trial court correctly determined that the Junior Dillahunts were not real parties in interest.
13 -13- In addition, we note that at the time the Junior Dillahunts sought to intervene, the action had already been pending against the Senior Dillahunts for more than a year. The Junior Dillahunts could have filed their motion to intervene as early as August 2008 given that they had asserted the same claims in the collateral attack action by that time, but the Junior Dillahunts instead chose to wait until more than two months after dismissal of that collateral action to file their motion. Under these circumstances, we can see no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision to refuse to hear the untimely motion at the time of the properlycalendared motion for partial summary judgment. In any event, since we have already affirmed the denial of the motion to intervene, the Junior Dillahunts cannot demonstrate any prejudice from the timing of the hearing of their motion to intervene. The issue regarding whether the trial court erred in deciding the motion for partial summary judgment first is now effectively moot. See Hailey v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 181 N.C. App. 677, , 640 S.E.2d 849, ("'A case is "moot" when a determination is sought on a matter which, when rendered, cannot have any practical effect on the existing controversy.'" (quoting Roberts v. Madison County Realtors Ass'n, 344 N.C. 394, , 474 S.E.2d 783, 787 (1996))), disc. review denied, 361 N.C. 426, 648 S.E.2d 502 (2007). Finally, we turn to the order granting partial summary judgment to FMV and the order denying the Junior Dillahunts' motion for a preliminary injunction. Although the Junior Dillahunts
14 -14- appealed from each of these orders and this Court previously granted their petition for writ of certiorari after dismissal of the summary judgment appeal the Junior Dillahunts acknowledge that the sole reason for the appeal of those orders was to preserve the status quo and protect their ability to proceed in the event that this Court reversed the denial of their motion to intervene or the Rule 41(b) dismissal. Since we have affirmed the denial of the motion to intervene in this opinion and, in another appeal, affirmed the Rule 41(b) dismissal, we need not address either order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal from each of these orders. Affirmed in part; dismissed in part. Judges JACKSON and BEASLEY concur. Report per Rule 30(e). Judge JACKSON concurred prior to 31 December 2010.
NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 17 February Appeal by respondents from order entered 8 August 2013 by
NO. COA14-108 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 17 February 2015 IN THE MATTER OF THE FORECLOSURE OF A DEED OF TRUST EXECUTED BY RALPH M. FOSTER AND SHYVONNE L. STEED-FOSTER DATED FEBRUARY 26, 2010
More informationNO. COA13-43 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 5 November 2013
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA Filed: 7 April 2015
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 5 February 2013
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 16 August Mecklenburg County. and
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 21 October 2014
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 17 September v. New Hanover County Nos. 11 CVM 1575 JOHN MUNN, 11 CVM 1576 Defendant.
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationCOUNTY OF JOHNSTON, Plaintiff v. CITY OF WILSON, Defendant No. COA (Filed 7 March 2000)
COUNTY OF JOHNSTON, Plaintiff v. CITY OF WILSON, Defendant No. COA98-1017 (Filed 7 March 2000) 1. Judges--recusal--no evidence or personal bias, prejudice, or interest The trial court did not err in denying
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 1 May Appeal by plaintiff from order entered 19 April 2006 by Judge
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 16 September Appeal by respondent from order entered 19 September 2013
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 6 May Appeal by Defendant from order entered 28 June 2013 by
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationWHEN IS A FORECLOSURE SALE FINAL IN NORTH CAROLINA?
WHEN IS A FORECLOSURE SALE FINAL IN NORTH CAROLINA? Can a borrower invoke Rule 60(b) to unwind a completed foreclosure sale after the property changes hands? The surprising answer is maybe, under the right
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 15 May 2012
NO. COA11-769 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 15 May 2012 COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., Plaintiff v. Iredell County No. 09 CVD 0160 JUDY C. REED, TROY D. REED, JUDY C. REED, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA Filed: 2 February 2016
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
REL: 09/18/2015 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate
More informationDAVID M. ELLIOTT and ELLIOTT AIR, INC., Plaintiffs, v. LISA L. ELLIOTT, DIANE K. NICHOLS, KAREN POWERS, and DENNIS L. MORAN, Defendants.
DAVID M. ELLIOTT and ELLIOTT AIR, INC., Plaintiffs, v. LISA L. ELLIOTT, DIANE K. NICHOLS, KAREN POWERS, and DENNIS L. MORAN, Defendants. NO. COA08-1493 (Filed 6 October 2009) 1. Civil Procedure Rule 60
More informationJAMES RIDINGER AND LOREN RIDINGER, Plaintiffs,
EAGLES NEST, A JOHN TURCHIN COMPANY, LLC, a North Carolina Limited Liability Company (f/k/a T & A Investments II, LLC, as successor in interest to T & A Hunting and Fishing Club, Inc., a North Carolina
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA Filed: 6 October 2015
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA No. COA15-131 Filed: 6 October 2015 Buncombe County, No. 14 CVS 2648 GAILLARD BELLOWS and her husband, JON BELLOWS, Plaintiffs, v. ASHEVILLE CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 1 July Appeal by plaintiff from order entered 5 September 2013 by
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE May 13, 2013 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE May 13, 2013 Session KENDALL FOSTER ET AL. v. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Anderson County No. 12CH3812
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE August 23, 2012 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE August 23, 2012 Session FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION AS RECEIVER FOR TENNESSEE COMMERCE BANK v. BILL CHAPMAN, JR.; LISA CHAPMAN; CHAPMAN VENTURES,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE March 23, 2017 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE March 23, 2017 Session 08/01/2017 JOHN O. THREADGILL V. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Knox County No. 189713-1 John F. Weaver,
More informationRUDOLPH LEONARD BAXLEY, JR., Plaintiff v. TIMOTHY O. JACKSON, LEISA S. JACKSON and ROSEWOOD INVESTMENTS, L.L.C., Defendants NO.
RUDOLPH LEONARD BAXLEY, JR., Plaintiff v. TIMOTHY O. JACKSON, LEISA S. JACKSON and ROSEWOOD INVESTMENTS, L.L.C., Defendants NO. COA05-1428 Filed: 3 October 2006 1. Civil Procedure Rule 60 not an alternative
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA Filed: 4 October 2016
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA No. COA16-142 Filed: 4 October 2016 Moore County, No. 15 CVS 217 SUSAN J. BALDELLI; TRAVEL RESORTS OF AMERICA, INC.; and TRIDENT DESIGNS, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. STEVEN
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE August 22, 2012 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE August 22, 2012 Session DAVID A. PACZKO ET AL. V. SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC. ET AL. Chancery Court for Williamson County No. 39912 No. M2011-02528-COA-R3-CV
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 15 October Appeal by defendant from an order entered 6 August 2012 by
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA Filed: 17 March 2015
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA No. COA14-810 Filed: 17 March 2015 MACON BANK, INC., Plaintiff, Macon County v. No. 13 CVS 456 STEPHEN P. GLEANER, MARTHA K. GLEANER, and WILLIAM A. PATTERSON,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA Filed: 21 November 2017
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA No. COA16-1298 Filed: 21 November 2017 Pitt County Office of Administrative Hearings, No. 16 OSP 6600 LENTON C. BROWN, Petitioner v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
More informationhttp://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/2005/040796-1.htm All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the North Carolina Reports and North
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA Filed: 5 May 2015
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA No. COA14-1040 Filed: 5 May 2015 Moore County, No. 13-CVS-1379 KAREN LARSEN, BENEFICIARY, MORGAN STANLEY as IRA CUSTODIAN f/b/o KAREN LARSEN, MARY JO STOUT, CHIARA
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS BAYVIEW FINANCIAL TRADING GROUP LP, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED October 25, 2005 v No. 262158 Wayne Circuit Court JACK MAVIGLIA and ABN AMRO LC No. 04-416062-CH
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 1 April 2014
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 18 September 2012
NO. COA12-131 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 18 September 2012 SUNTRUST BANK, Plaintiff, v. Forsyth County No. 10 CVS 983 BRYANT/SUTPHIN PROPERTIES, LLC, CALVERT R. BRYANT, JR. AND DONALD H. SUTPHIN,
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 15 July Appeal by defendants from order entered 17 September 2013
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS EASTERN SAVINGS BANK, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED November 26, 2002 v No. 231886 Oakland Circuit Court MONROE BANK & TRUST and LC No. 00-021066-CH NATIONSCREDIT
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 31 December Appeal by respondent from order entered 14 April 2014 by
NO. COA14-647 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 31 December 2014 IN THE MATTER OF: BABY BOY Wake County No. 13 JT 69 Appeal by respondent from order entered 14 April 2014 by Judge Margaret Eagles
More informationKrawiec v. Manly, 2015 NCBC 82.
Krawiec v. Manly, 2015 NCBC 82. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA MECKLENBURG COUNTY IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION 15 CVS 1927 MICHAEL KRAWIEC, JENNIFER KRAWIEC, and HAPPY DANCE, INC./CMT
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA Filed: 15 November SANDHILL AMUSEMENTS, INC. and GIFT SURPLUS, LLC, Plaintiffs
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION
Chapman et al v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al Doc. 37 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION BILL M. CHAPMAN, JR. and ) LISA B. CHAPMAN, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) )
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 15 March Appeal by defendants from order entered 28 January 2010 by
NO. COA10-383 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 15 March 2011 PAULA MAY TOWNSEND, Plaintiff, v. Watauga County No. 09 CVS 517 MARK WILLIAM SHOOK, individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff
More informationDefendants. THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendants Margaret Gibson,
Bandy v. A Perfect Fit for You, Inc., 2018 NCBC 21. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF CARTERET IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION 16 CVS 456 SHELLEY BANDY, Plaintiff and Third-Party
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 2 January 2007
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationS10A1436. PITTMAN et al. v. STATE OF GEORGIA. Bobby and Judy Pittman ( the Pittmans ) and their corporation, Hungry
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: February 28, 2011 S10A1436. PITTMAN et al. v. STATE OF GEORGIA. NAHMIAS, Justice. Bobby and Judy Pittman ( the Pittmans ) and their corporation, Hungry Jacks Foods,
More informationSUPERIOR COURT DIVISION COUNTY OF WAKE 13 CVS 7849
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION COUNTY OF WAKE 13 CVS 7849 AMERICANA DEVELOPMENT, INC., Plaintiff v. EBIUS TRADING & DISTRIBUTING COMPANY f/k/a EASTERN BIKES,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
-NLS Kaszuba et al v. Fedelity National Default Services et al Doc. 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1 KRIS KASZUBA, et al., vs. FIDELITY NATIONAL DEFAULT SERVICES, et al.,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
REL: 8/15/08 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate
More informationTHIS CAUSE came on to be heard before the undersigned judge on the plaintiff^ State of
S: ^ STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA^OO COUNTY OF WAKE U j"- - V v ki i V I, %%! GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE e r. SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION XJ. FILE NO: 13 CVS 007161 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, ex rel. ROY COOPER, Attorney
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS GLENNA BRYAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION April 10, 2014 9:05 a.m. v No. 313279 Oakland Circuit Court JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, LC No. 2012-124595-CH Defendant-Appellee.
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 4 March 2014
NO. COA13-838 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 4 March 2014 FIRST BANK, Plaintiff, v. Montgomery County No. 11 CVS 74 S&R GRANDVIEW, L.L.C.; DONALD J. RHINE; JOEL R. RHINE; GORDON P. FRIEZE, JR.;
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JACK A. Y. FAKHOURY and MOTOR CITY AUTO WASH, INC., UNPUBLISHED January 17, 2006 Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross- Appellees, v No. 256540 Oakland Circuit Court LYNN L. LOWER,
More information2015 IL App (1st) U. No IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
2015 IL App (1st) 142862-U FOURTH DIVISION April 30, 2015 No. 14-2862 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs January 4, 2011
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs January 4, 2011 ROBERT E. DAVIS ET AL. v. CRAWFORD L. WILLIAMS ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Loudon County No. 11472 Frank
More informationAnderson v. Coastal Communities at Ocean Ridge Plantation, Inc., 2011 NCBC 14.
Anderson v. Coastal Communities at Ocean Ridge Plantation, Inc., 2011 NCBC 14. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE COUNTY OF BRUNSWICK 09 CVS 1042 ("Anderson" BERRY ANDERSON, et al.,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA Filed: 21 February DARRELL S. HAUSER and ROBIN E. WHITAKER HAUSER, Defendants.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA No. COA16-606 Filed: 21 February 2017 Forsyth County, No. 15CVS7698 TERESA KAY HAUSER, Plaintiff, v. DARRELL S. HAUSER and ROBIN E. WHITAKER HAUSER, Defendants.
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 2 October 2012
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationCourt of Appeals. First District of Texas
Opinion issued January 15, 2015 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-13-00737-CV CRYOGENIC VESSEL ALTERNATIVES, INC., Appellant V. LILY AND YVETTE CONSTRUCTION, LLC, Appellee
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 5 November On writ of certiorari to review order entered 29 May 2012
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 21 May 2013
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitu te controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2013 OKALOOSA NEW OPPORTUNITY, LLC, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS CARL E. BRITTAIN and HEIDI S. BRITTAIN, Plaintiffs/Cross Defendants- Appellants, UNPUBLISHED November 22, 2016 v No. 328365 Jackson Circuit Court FIRST MERIT BANK also
More informationNO. COA Filed: 17 April Workers Compensation settlement agreement payment timeliness
ROBERT MORRISON, Employee, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Employer, and KEY RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES, Servicing Agent, Defendants-Appellees NO. COA06-749 Filed:
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. August Term, (Submitted:September 23, 2013 Decided: December 8, 2014)
--cv (L) 0 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 0 (Submitted:September, 0 Decided: December, 0) Docket Nos. --cv, --cv -----------------------------------------------------------X
More informationNO. COA Filed: 5 July 2005
DONNA L. BROWN, WESLEY R. BROWN and wife, MARTEE U. BROWN, JACK M. FISHER and wife, CATHEY G. FISHER, ANTHONY N. HUBBARD and wife, FRANCES M. HUBBARD, JAMES M. MECUM, JR., GARNETT L. MIDKIFF, JR., E. RAYMOND
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 21 August Appeal by Defendant and cross-appeal by Plaintiff from
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION DOCKET NO. 3:14-CV-165-FDW ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION DOCKET NO. 3:14-CV-165-FDW LARRY BAXTER, JR. vs. Plaintiff, BROCK & SCOTT PLLC, JP MORGAN CHASE & CO., ANDREA HUDSON,
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 16 July Appeal by Plaintiffs from order entered 13 August 2012 by
NO. COA12-1385 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 16 July 2013 GEORGE CHRISTIE AND DEBORAH CHRISTIE, Plaintiffs, v. Orange County No. 11 CVS 2147 HARTLEY CONSTRUCTION, INC.; GRAILCOAT WORLDWIDE, LLC;
More informationFourteenth Court of Appeals
Reversed and Rendered in Part, Affirmed in Part, and Majority and Concurring Opinions filed May 31, 2018. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-17-00220-CV JELINIS, LLC, Appellant V. S. BRUCE HIRAN
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA Filed: 16 January 2018
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationNUMBER CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
NUMBER 13-16-00318-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG BBVA COMPASS A/K/A COMPASS BANK, SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST OF TEXAS STATE BANK, Appellant, v. ADOLFO VELA AND LETICIA
More informationSTEVEN BUELTEL, Plaintiff v. LUMBER MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, also known as Lumber Insurance Companies, Defendant. No. COA
STEVEN BUELTEL, Plaintiff v. LUMBER MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, also known as Lumber Insurance Companies, Defendant No. COA98-1006 (Filed 17 August 1999) 1. Declaratory Judgments--actual controversy--restrictive
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION GREGORY HOOKER and wife ANN MARIE HOOKER, Plaintiffs, vs. Case No. 3-03-CV-2222-R COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOAN, INC., WASHINGTON
More informationCivil Procedure Case Summaries July October 2009
Civil Procedure Case Summaries July October 2009 SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER ESTATE-RELATED MATTERS Livesay v. Carolina First Bank et al., COA09-111 (Oct. 6, 2009). Wife of deceased filed a declaratory
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 4 March Appeal by Defendant from order entered 29 April 2013 by
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 20 July Appeal by Defendants from order entered 12 February 2009, by
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationNO. CAAP IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
NO. CAAP-13-0001390 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I PNC MORTGAGE, a Division of PNC Bank, N.A., Successor by Merger with National City Bank, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. REIKO KONDO,
More information2015 IL App (1st) U. THIRD DIVISION May 27, No IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
2015 IL App (1st) 141235-U THIRD DIVISION May 27, 2015 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed
More informationBD. OF BARBER EXAMINERS
KINDSGRAB v. STATE BD. OF BARBER EXAMINERS Cite as 763 S.E.2d 913 (N.C.App. 2014) Hans KINDSGRAB, Petitioner Appellant, v. STATE of North Carolina BOARD OF BARBER EXAMINERS, Respondent Appellant. No. COA13
More informationState of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department
State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department Decided and Entered: February 14, 2013 514808 US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee for CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON MBS 2004-4,
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 FLAGSTAR BANK, FSB v. Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA BRIAN D. WAMPOLE A/K/A BRIAN WAMPOLE, TAMMY WAMPOLE, THE UNITED STATES OF
More informationCase 2:09-cv DPH-MJH Document 28 Filed 01/20/2010 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Case 2:09-cv-13505-DPH-MJH Document 28 Filed 01/20/2010 Page 1 of 14 IN RE: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION The Bankruptcy Court s Use of a Standardized Form
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 16 October 2012
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationEXTREMELY TIME SENSITIVE
CAAP-11-0001101 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF Electronically THE STATE OF Filed HAWAII Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-11-0001101 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A, NATIONAL DC CIVIL NO. 30-DEC-2011 11-1-1133
More informationNO. COA Filed: 7 November Class Actions--ruling on summary judgment before deciding motion for class certification
ROBERT A. LEVERETTE, RICKY WHITEHEAD, and JOHN ALLEN CLARK, both individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. LABOR WORKS INTERNATIONAL, LLC,LABOR WORKS INTERNATIONAL
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :0-cv-000-WQH-KSC Document Filed // Page of 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, as Receiver for LA JOLLA BANK, FSB, Plaintiff, vs.
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 16 August Appeal by defendant from order entered 15 July 2010 by
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE September 15, 2006 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE September 15, 2006 Session DANIEL MUSIC GROUP, LLC v. TANASI MUSIC, LLC, ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County No. 05-0761-II Carol
More informationCase 0:14-cv JIC Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/24/2015 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 0:14-cv-62780-JIC Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/24/2015 Page 1 of 12 CHRISTOPHER BROPHY and TARA LEWIS, v. Appellants, SONIA SALKIN, as Chapter 7 Trustee for the Estate of the Debtor, UNITED
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 2 April 2013
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationMOTION TO VACATE FINAL JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 13th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA LIQUIDATED INVESTMENTS, LLC., n/k/a CITICOMPANY HOLDINGS, INC. CASE NO: 2009-xxxxx CA 01 Plaintiff, v. HECTOR R.
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS CAESAREA DEVELLE JAMES, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED August 2, 2012 v No. 303944 Oakland Circuit Court DLJ MORTGAGE CAPITAL and WMC LC No. 2010-114245-CH CAPITAL
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. COA Filed: 6 March 2018
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 16 April Appeal by plaintiff from order entered 3 April 2012 by
PHELPS STAFFING, LLC Plaintiff, NO. COA12-886 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 16 April 2013 v. Franklin County No. 10 CVS 1300 C. T. PHELPS, INC. and CHARLES T. PHELPS, Defendants. Appeal by plaintiff
More informationTHIS CAUSE came on before the undersigned Superior Court Judge on the Attorney
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA WAKE COUNTY IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION NO. 05CV002761 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ex rel. ROY COOPER, Attorney General, Plaintiff, TEMPORARY vs. RESTRAINING
More informationNO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 5 July Appeal by plaintiff from orders entered 15 April 2010 and 2
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KOOTENAI ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
STATE OF IDAHO County of KOOTENAI ss FILED AT O'Clock M CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT Deputy IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KOOTENAI GENE
More informationUNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2014 PAULETTE WILLIAMS. CARRIE M. WARD, et al. SUBSTITUTE TRUSTEES
UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2261 September Term, 2014 PAULETTE WILLIAMS v. CARRIE M. WARD, et al. SUBSTITUTE TRUSTEES Nazarian, Leahy, Rodowsky, Lawrence F. (Retired, Specially
More informationMills v Whosoever Will Community Church of Christ 2015 NY Slip Op 30837(U) May 14, 2015 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2014
Mills v Whosoever Will Community Church of Christ 2015 NY Slip Op 30837(U) May 14, 2015 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 160143/2014 Judge: Arthur F. Engoron Cases posted with a "30000" identifier,
More informationBANK OF AMERICA, N.A., a national banking association, Plaintiff/Appellant,
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., a national banking association, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. FELCO BUSINESS SERVICES, INC. 401(K) PROFIT SHARING PLAN, Ira S. Feldman, Trustee;
More informationhttp://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/2004/021704-1.htm All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the North Carolina Reports and North
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
Case 1:16-cv-03009-WSD Document 14 Filed 01/31/17 Page 1 of 13 MIRCEA F. TONEA, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION Plaintiff, v. 1:16-cv-3009-WSD
More information