Equitable Leasing Corp. v. Myers

265 S.E.2d 240, 46 N.C. App. 162, 1980 N.C. App. LEXIS 2811
CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina
DecidedApril 15, 1980
Docket7920SC583
StatusPublished
Cited by53 cases

This text of 265 S.E.2d 240 (Equitable Leasing Corp. v. Myers) 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
Equitable Leasing Corp. v. Myers, 265 S.E.2d 240, 46 N.C. App. 162, 1980 N.C. App. LEXIS 2811 (N.C. Ct. App. 1980).

Opinion

WELLS, Judge.

We deal first with defendant Juanita Myers’ argument that the trial court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment against her is not appealable. The denial of summary judgment is interlocutory in nature and not appealable under G.S. 1-277 and G.S. 7A-27, unless a substantial right of one of the parties would be affected if the appeal were not heard prior to final judgment. Motyka v. Nappier, 9 N.C. App. 579, 176 S.E. 2d 858 (1970). The record does not reveal that any such substantial right is involved in the present case. Accordingly, we hold that plaintiff’s appeal as to defendant Juanita Myers should be dismissed.

We next deal with the question of whether the summary judgment entered against defendant Harold Myers is appealable, since it is clear that the judgment appealed from adjudicates the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties. Although plaintiff does not raise the issue in its brief, it is the duty of an appellate court to dismiss an appeal on its own motion if there is no right to appeal. Waters v. Personnel, Inc., 294 N.C. 200, 240 S.E. 2d 338 (1978). The question here involves interpretation of G.S. 1A-1, Rule 54(b), which provides in pertinent part:

(b) Judgment upon multiple claims or involving multiple parties.— When . . . multiple parties are involved, the court may enter a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the . . . parties only if there is no just reason for delay and it is so determined in the judgment. Such judgment shall then be subject to review by appeal or otherwise provided by these rules or other statutes. In the absence of entry of such a final judgment, any order or form of decision, however, designated, which adjudicates . . . the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties shall not terminate the action as to any of the . . . parties and shall not then be subject to review *165 either by appeal or otherwise except as expressly provided by these rules or other statutes. Similarly, in the absence of entry of such a final judgment, any order or other form of decision is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the . . . rights and liabilities of all the parties. [Emphasis added.]

The North Carolina Rule 54(b) is substantially similar to its Federal counterpart, as that Rule was amended in 1961, and we have therefore appropriately considered Federal decisions and authorities for guidance and direction in the interpretation of our Rule. In Arnold v. Howard, 24 N.C. App. 255, 210 S.E. 2d 492 (1974) Judge Parker, speaking for the Court, stated that the need for Rule 54(b) arose from the increased opportunity for liberal joinder of claims and parties under the Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court commented that the Rule contemplated that the trial court would act as the “dispatcher” of cases to the appellate court and would determine, in the first instance, the time at which each “final decision” disposing of less than all the claims in a multiple claim suit or the liability of less than all of the parties in a multiparty suit, is appropriate for appeal. Judge Parker explained that under the Rule, the trial court is granted the discretionary authority to enter a final judgment as to fewer than all of the parties, “only if there is no just reason for delay and it is so determined in the judgment,” and that by expressing this determination in the judgment the trial judge is in effect “certifying” that the judgment is a final judgment and subject to immediate appeal. However, the Court held that under Rule 54(b), in the absence of certification by the trial court, any order or other form of decision, however designated, which adjudicates fewer than all of the claims, or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all of the parties, would be considered interlocutory and not appealable. Our opinion in Arnold was not reviewed by the Supreme Court. Arnold is in line with the interpretation given Federal Rule 54(b):

Unlike original Rule 54(b), which did not lodge any control in the trial court over any adjudication that it rendered, the amended Rule defines finality in terms of what the [trial] court does and gives this court broad discretion in applying finality. Flexibility is introduced by giving the [trial] court, which has first hand information as to the litigation and its *166 progress, power to determine that when one branch of it has been adjudicated it is or is not then ripe for appellate review.

6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 54.28[1], pp. 363-364 (1976).

The question was next before this Court in Newton v. Insurance Co., 27 N.C. App. 168, 218 S.E. 2d 231 (1975), rev’d, 291 N.C. 105, 229 S.E. 2d 297 (1976). We held that since the defendant had sought recovery under two claims, one for actual damages and the other for punitive damages, an appeal from an order of the trial court dismissing the claim for punitive damages was interlocutory and not final because it had adjudicated fewer than all the claims and the trial court had certified the judgment for immediate appeal under Rule 54(b). Our Supreme Court reversed, Justice Exum reasoning that the North Carolina Rule 54(b) must be distinguished from its Federal counterpart because our Rule states an exception permitting appeal where allowed by statute, such as the exceptions stated in G.S. 1-277 and G.S. 7A-27(d) which authorize appeal from certain interlocutory orders and judgments. Justice Exum concluded that our Rule 54(b) expands, rather than restricts, the compass of review of orders and judgments, and held that a substantial right of the plaintiff would be affected if plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages was not heard before the same judge and jury as heard the claim for compensatory damages. Appeal was thus allowed under G.S. 1-277 and G.S. 7A-27(d). See also, Oestreicher v. Stores, 290 N.C. 118, 225 S.E. 2d 797 (1976); Highway Commission v. Nuckles, 271 N.C. 1, 155 S.E. 2d 772 (1967).

The issue was again before the appellate courts of our State in the case of Investments v. Housing, Inc., 28 N.C. App. 385, 221 S.E. 2d 381 (1976), rev’d, 292 N.C. 93, 232 S.E. 2d 667 (1977). In that case the trial court had granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the monetary sum of $204,603.55, but retained for trial the issue of defendants’ right to a setoff. Execution was entered to enforce the judgment and an order entered by the Clerk declaring the judgment a lien upon funds alleged to be owing to the defendant from a third party. We held that this judgment adjudicated fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties, and dismissed the appeal as premature under Rule 54(b). Our Supreme Court reversed, stating that the statutory provisions available to defendant for a *167 stay of execution upon a money judgment under G.S. 1-269 and G.S. 1-289, as well as the authorization which Rule 62(g) grants the trial court to stay enforcement of a judgment pending its determination of other aspects of the litigation, would require defendant, even if successful, to incur a substantial expense.

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

Related

Arrington v. Arrington
Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2025
Clements v. Clements
Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2014
Brown v. Cavit Sciences, Inc.
749 S.E.2d 904 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2013)
Johnson v. Johnson
701 S.E.2d 722 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2010)
Showalter v. North Carolina Department of Crime Control & Public Safety
643 S.E.2d 649 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2007)
Bolick v. County of Caldwell
641 S.E.2d 386 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2007)
Johnson v. Lucas
608 S.E.2d 336 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2005)
Johnson v. Wornom
606 S.E.2d 372 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2005)
Clontz v. St. Mark's Evangelical Lutheran Church
578 S.E.2d 654 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2003)
Dawson v. Atlanta Design Associates, Inc.
551 S.E.2d 877 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2001)
First Atlantic Management, Corp. v. Dunlea Realty, Co.
507 S.E.2d 56 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1998)
Vera v. Five Crow Promotions, Inc.
503 S.E.2d 692 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1998)
North Carolina Department of Transportation v. Page
460 S.E.2d 332 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1995)
Coastal Ready-Mix Concrete Co. v. North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission
446 S.E.2d 823 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1994)
Denegar v. City of Charlotte
443 S.E.2d 778 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1994)
North Carolina Railroad v. City of Charlotte
437 S.E.2d 393 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1993)
RC ASSOCIATES v. Regency Ventures, Inc.
432 S.E.2d 394 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1993)
McNeil v. Hicks
431 S.E.2d 868 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1993)
Cagle v. Teachy
431 S.E.2d 801 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1993)
Donnelly v. Guilford County
419 S.E.2d 365 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
265 S.E.2d 240, 46 N.C. App. 162, 1980 N.C. App. LEXIS 2811, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/equitable-leasing-corp-v-myers-ncctapp-1980.