Commercial Credit Corporation v. McCorkle

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Commercial Credit Corporation v. McCorkle

198 S.E.2d 736, 19 N.C. App. 397, 1973 N.C. App. LEXIS 1666

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedSeptember 12, 1973

Docket7326DC448

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 198 S.E.2d 736 (Commercial Credit Corporation v. McCorkle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commercial Credit Corporation v. McCorkle, 198 S.E.2d 736, 19 N.C. App. 397, 1973 N.C. App. LEXIS 1666 (N.C. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

BROCK, Chief Judge.

The record on appeal reflects that summary judgment was rendered upon a consideration of the pleadings alone. In the pleadings defendant denied the allegation of the amount alleged by plaintiff to be due under the contract. Plaintiff offered no supporting affidavits, depositions, or answers to interrogatories, but elected to stand upon its allegation in its complaint of a sum due which defendant denied. According to the stipulations *398 filed in this Court both the complaint and the answer were verified.

The trial court, upon motion for summary judgment under Rule 56, should not undertake to resolve an issue of credibility. Lee v. Shor, 10 N.C. App. 231, 178 S.E. 2d 101. In this case plaintiff alleges defendant is indebted to plaintiff; defendant denies the allegation. Where a defendant denies the existence of the debt alleged, unless admissions by defendant clearly show- that his denial of the debt is utterly baseless in fact, defendant’s denial raises a genuine issue as to a material fact. Where a genuine issue as to a material fact is raised," summary judgment is improper. See G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56(c). In this case defendant’s admission that he executed the Transfer of Interest Agreement does not render his denial of the debt to be baseless. From the pleadings alone it cannot be determined as a fact, that defendant owes the plaintiff a sum of money in any ¿mount.

Reversed.

Judges. Morris and Parker concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BROCK, Chief Judge.

The record on appeal reflects that summary judgment was rendered upon a consideration of the pleadings alone. In the pleadings defendant denied the allegation of the amount alleged by plaintiff to be due under the contract. Plaintiff offered no supporting affidavits, depositions, or answers to interrogatories, but elected to stand upon its allegation in its complaint of a sum due which defendant denied. According to the stipulations *398 filed in this Court both the complaint and the answer were verified.

The trial court, upon motion for summary judgment under Rule 56, should not undertake to resolve an issue of credibility. Lee v. Shor, 10 N.C. App. 231, 178 S.E. 2d 101. In this case plaintiff alleges defendant is indebted to plaintiff; defendant denies the allegation. Where a defendant denies the existence of the debt alleged, unless admissions by defendant clearly show- that his denial of the debt is utterly baseless in fact, defendant’s denial raises a genuine issue as to a material fact. Where a genuine issue as to a material fact is raised," summary judgment is improper. See G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56(c). In this case defendant’s admission that he executed the Transfer of Interest Agreement does not render his denial of the debt to be baseless. From the pleadings alone it cannot be determined as a fact, that defendant owes the plaintiff a sum of money in any ¿mount.

Reversed.

Judges. Morris and Parker concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 S.E.2d 736, 19 N.C. App. 397, 1973 N.C. App. LEXIS 1666, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commercial-credit-corporation-v-mccorkle-ncctapp-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack