Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Tag Archives: mootness

Real Property – Mortgages – Foreclosure – Civil Practice – Appeals – Mootness – Completed Sale (access required)

In re Foreclosure of Deed of Trust by Wilson The mortgaged property was sold to Fannie Mae subsequent to an order permitting foreclosure, and the trustee’s deed was recorded. There is no indication that the respondent-mortgagor paid a bond to stay the foreclosure sale, nor was there an upset bid during the 10-day period or any indication in the record that respondent obtained a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction prior to the end of the 10-day upset bid period.

Read More »

Real Property – Mortgages – Foreclosure – Civil Practice – Subject Matter Jurisdiction – Arbitration – Mootness (access required)

In re Foreclosure of Cornblum In a power of sale proceeding initiated under G.S. § 45-21.16, the clerk of court, and the superior court on appeal from the clerk’s decision, lack subject matter jurisdiction to consider and rule on a party’s motion to compel arbitration. In re Foreclosure of Pugh (March 6, 2012; Lawyers Weekly No. 12-07-0257)

Read More »

Civil Practice – Declaratory Judgment – Mootness – Labor & Employment – Public Employees – Breach of Contract Allegation (access required)

Hindman v. Appalachian State University Where the Feb. 10, 2011 complaint sought only a declaratory judgment that defendants had breached the plaintiff-professors’ contracts by reducing their salaries by 0.5 percent for the 2008-09 academic year, defendants were entitled to summary judgment on mootness grounds.

Read More »

Municipal – Ultra Vires Action – Subdivision Ordinance – Schools & School Boards – School Funding – Developer & Builder Fees – Civil Practice – Appeals – Interlocutory – Mootness – Standing – Statute of Limitations – Constitutional – Due Process – Equal Protection (access required)

Amward Homes, Inc. v. Town of Cary Our Court of Appeals held that the defendant-town was not responsible for setting up or funding schools, and it lacked statutory authority to charge developers and/or builders a fee designed to ensure adequate funding for area schools. With Justice Jackson not participating, the remaining members of the court are equally divided, with three members voting to reverse and three members voting to affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Read More »