MCC Outdoor, LLC v. Town of Wake Forest Plaintiff’s forecast of evidence indicates that the defendant-town caused plaintiff’s billboard to be removed since the only reason the new landowner did not extend plaintiff’s lease was because the town’s special use permit forbade it. However, the town’s forecast of evidence indicates that the new landowner would not have allowed the billboard to remain, even absent the special use permit condition.

Tagged with: Municipal Real Property special-use permit Zoning

In re Foreclosure of Draffen The fact that a property owner is participating in a civil action in federal court alleging the bank holding his mortgage had fraudulently induced him and others to buy property at a severely inflated value does not protect his property from proper foreclosure by that bank.

Tagged with: foreclosure Real Property

Sansotta v. Town of Nags Head The defendant-town denied plaintiffs a building permit because their application was incomplete; therefore, plaintiffs cannot challenge a new town ordinance based solely on the town’s threatened or hypothetical denial of a permit under the new ordinance.

Tagged with: Civil Practice Condemnation Municipal nuisance Real Property

Cabrera v. Hensley Since plaintiffs had already contracted to buy the lots at issue before the defendant-appraisers appraised the lots, plaintiffs could not have relied on the appraisals in obligating themselves to buy the lots.

Tagged with: Civil Practice Real Property Statute of Limitations Tort/Negligence

Matthieu v. Miller The restrictive covenants in the parties’ neighborhood prohibited commercial activity. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed defendants to do their business’s clerical work inside their home.

Tagged with: Real Property restrictive covenants

Matthieu v. Miller The restrictive covenants in the parties’ neighborhood prohibited commercial activity. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed defendants to do their business’s clerical work inside their home.

Tagged with: Real Property restrictive covenants

In re Foreclosure of the Deed of Trust of Johnson In this foreclosure action, respondent had seven weeks after he filed a pro se appeal, and five weeks after he received notice of the hearing of his appeal, to hire a lawyer. At the hearing, respondent claimed to have hired an attorney who was prevented from appearing by a death in the family, but respondent admitted that he had not paid the attorney to represent him. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied respondent’s motion to continue.

Tagged with: Civil Practice foreclosure mortgages Real Property

McMillan v. Ryan Jackson Properties, LLC The hearing on the defendant-contractor’s summary judgment motion was conducted on July 7, 2011, five weeks after plaintiffs were notified that the contractor’s project file was available for pick-up. Plaintiffs offered no explanation for their three-week delay in picking up the project file. Five weeks was a reasonable time for plaintiffs and their expert to retrieve and examine the contractor’s file in order to discover any evidence which could be used to oppose the summary judgment motion. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion to continue.

Tagged with: Civil Practice Contractor Real Property summary judgment Tort/Negligence

Escarraman v. Northwoods at Coulwood Homeowners Association, Inc. Where there was an actual agreement between the defendants covering the crossclaim at issue, defendant Landmark Capital LLC could not recover on its quasi contract unjust enrichment crossclaim.

Tagged with: Contract foreclosure Liens Real Property

Southeast Shortlines, Inc. v. Rutherford Railroad Development Corp. It is true that a “public condemnor” like the defendant-town may condemn the property of a private condemnor, like the plaintiff-railroad, “if such property is not in actual public use or not necessary to the operation of the business of the owner.” G.S. § 40A-5(b). However, title to the subject property does not vest in the public condemnor, nor does “the right to immediate possession of the property [] become effective until the superior court has rendered final judgment (after any appeals) that the property is not in actual public use or is not necessary to the operation of the business of the owner….” G.S. § 40A-42(c)

Tagged with: Condemnation Municipal Real Property