By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: December 28,2012
Broughton v. County Commission Since plaintiff was challenging the valuation of her Wake County real property for tax purposes, the county was the proper defendant.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: December 27,2012
In re Foreclosure of Beauchemin The appellant-owners of the real property in Jackson County stipulated that they received notice of the Jackson County foreclosure. In this Jackson County action appellant Richard Beauchemin may not collaterally attack the foreclosure notice sent to him involving property his business owned (before foreclosure) in Haywood County.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: December 26,2012
Turner v. Hammocks Beach Corp. Where the N.C. State Board of Education made judicial admissions disclaiming any interest in a trust that administers real property in Onslow County, and where the Board admitted that it “may not serve as successor trustee,” the trial court should not have appointed the Board as trustee of the trust.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: December 26,2012
Sollis v. Holman After obtaining a Texas judgment against a no-asset Texas corporation, plaintiff cannot bring a North Carolina action to pierce the corporate veil in order to enforce the judgment against the Texas corporation’s owner, a Texas resident. We affirm summary judgment for defendant.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: October 11,2012
Johnson v. Opsitnick The trial court found at the summary judgment stage that the parties’ prior settlement agreement did not relieve defendants of the obligation of paying a $40,777.63 promissory note. Defendants’ appeal of this ruling was rendered moot when the jury found that defendants took advantage of a position of trust and confidence to induce plaintiff to enter into the settlement agreement so as to void that agreement. Since the settlement agreement is void, the issue of whether it relieved defendants of the obligation of paying the promissory note is now moot.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: October 11,2012
Lawley v. Liberty Mutual Group, Inc. If defendants breached their disability insurance contract with plaintiff, they did so when they denied her claim on March 28, 2003, not every time a monthly disability payment was due. Plaintiff’s June 27, 2011 complaint was not timely filed.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: October 11,2012
Schermerhorn v. North Carolina State Highway Patrol Even though petitioner served his petition for judicial review on the respondent-agency’s counsel, an assistant attorney general, such service was inadequate to meet G.S. § 150B-46’s requirement that copies of the petition be served “upon all who were parties of record to the administrative proceedings.”
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: October 11,2012
Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Willetts This court previously denied defendants’ motion to dismiss based on its determination that, should defendants’ actions be determined to fall beyond the scope of the business judgment rule, they will be judged against an ordinary prudent person standard. The court stands by its ruling.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: October 11,2012
WNC Holdings, LLC v. Alliance Bank & Trust Co. Where the defendant-bank acted as a financial and development advisor to the plaintiff-borrower, the bank owed the borrower a fiduciary duty.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: October 10,2012
WNC Holdings, LLC v. Alliance Bank & Trust Co. Where the defendant-bank acted as a financial and development advisor to the plaintiff-borrower, the bank owed the borrower a fiduciary duty. Defendants’ motions to dismiss are granted in part and denied in part. The bank’s motion to change venue is granted.
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
Applewood Properties, LLC v. New South Properties, LLC Because the county Natural Resources Department never found the defendant-contractor to be in violation of any law, rule, order or erosion and sedimentation and control plan, plaintiff did not have standing to bring a civil action under the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act to seek redress for its injuries.
North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. Cully’s Motorcross Park, Inc. Even though defendant Volpe would probably never have been charged with obtaining property by false pretenses if the plaintiff-insurance company’s investigator had not told a police sergeant the results of his investigation, we reject this “but for” standard as the method for proving the initiation element of malicious prosecution.
Bridges v. Parrish We reject plaintiff’s claim that defendants are liable for failing to secure their gun, thereby allowing their 52-year-old son to gain access to the gun and shoot plaintiff with it.
