By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: December 21,2012
Copeland v. Copeland Where the trial court valued the land awarded to the plaintiff-wife pursuant to an appraisal of two acres, but where the trial court only awarded the wife one acre, the valuation of the wife’s portion of the marital real property is not supported by competent evidence.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: June 14,2012
Abraham v. Jauregui In their negligent misrepresentation claim, the plaintiff-purchasers allege that, by relying on appraisal management company HomeFocus Services, LLC’s and Bank of America’s actions in approving plaintiffs’ loan applications, plaintiffs were also relying, albeit indirectly, upon the defendant-appraisers’ representations provided to HomeFocus and Bank of America, which were contained in the appraisal reports. However, in order to state a claim for negligent misrepresentation, plaintiffs must allege direct rather than indirect reliance.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: May 17,2012
Glendale LLC v. Amco Insurance Co. Where the defendant-insurer’s appraiser and the appraisal umpire incorporated issues of causation and coverage into their appraisal of the fire damage to plaintiff’s restaurant, the appraisal is invalid. Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment is granted as to the only damages item on which the parties agree: $14,839 in lost perishable goods. Otherwise, the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment are denied.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: October 6,2011
City of Charlotte v. Combs An expert’s testimony about damages from a temporary construction easement (TCE) should have been excluded because his failure to appraise the entire lot was based only on his experience that the remainder of a lot is not affected by a TCE. Defendants are entitled to a new trial.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: July 13,2011
Allran v. Branch Banking & Trust Corp. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-15-0698, 14 pp.) (Calvin E. Murphy, J.) N.C. Bus. Ct. Holding: The plaintiff-borrower alleges that the defendant-bank (1) failed to reveal that the land the borrower was buying was not worth the purchase price and (2) falsified closing documents; these allegations are not sufficient to show any fiduciary duty or fraud, but they are sufficient to state a claim of unfair and deceptive trade practices. The bank’s motion to dismiss is granted as to plaintiff’s claims of breach of fiduciary duty, constructive fraud, fraud, and fraud in the inducement. The motion to dismiss is denied as to plaintiff’s unfair trade practices claim.
By North Carolina Dispute Resolution Commission
Published: March 8,2011
EPH Land Co. Inc. v. Bosher. Partners who are buying out the ownership interest of a withdrawing partner and agree to abide by the findings of a real estate appraiser they hired must rely on that appraiser's . . .
NC Lawyers Weekly keeps you connected with the latest legal news, Daily Practice and Breaking
News alerts.
Sign up for NC Lawyers Weekly email alerts
Bartlett v. Wayne County Board of Education Plaintiffs contend that the majority of eyewitnesses in this case testified that the responding officer’s diagram depicting the accident scene was accurate, that the diagram demonstrates plaintiffs’ “van had to have been almost directly in front of the bus at the time [the bus driver] started her turn,” and that this evidence conclusively established that the bus driver failed to yield the right-of-way to plaintiffs’ van.
Fidelity Bank v. North Carolina Department of Revenue Even though the N.C. Revenue Act uses the Internal Revenue Code to determine state net income, and even though the Code treats “market discount income” on U.S. Treasury bonds as interest for purposes of the Code, under the N.C. Revenue Act market discount income on U.S. Treasury bonds is treated as income rather than interest.
Apex Tool Group, LLC v. Ingersoll-Rand Co. Neither plaintiff nor the individual defendants are Texas residents; nevertheless, each of the individual defendants’ employment agreements includes an unambiguous and mandatory forum selection clause, which says any lawsuit involving the agreement must be brought in Harris County, Texas. The employment agreements were entered into by plaintiff’s predecessor and the individual defendants, who apparently did not live in Texas when they entered into the contracts and thus apparently anticipated interstate travel in the event of a trial.
