NORTHWOOD HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. Town of Chapel Hill

436 S.E.2d 282, 112 N.C. App. 630, 1993 N.C. App. LEXIS 1200
CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina
DecidedNovember 16, 1993
Docket9215SC535
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 436 S.E.2d 282 (NORTHWOOD HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. Town of Chapel Hill) 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
NORTHWOOD HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. Town of Chapel Hill, 436 S.E.2d 282, 112 N.C. App. 630, 1993 N.C. App. LEXIS 1200 (N.C. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

JOHNSON, Judge.

On 22 April.1991, the Chapel Hill Town Council (Council) voted to approve, by a 5-3 vote, a Special Use Permit for development of a forty (40) acre tract of land known as Chapel Hill North. This site is bounded generally by 1-40 on the north, N.C. 86 on the west, Weaver Dairy Road on the south, and Perkins Drive on the east. This site is zoned “Mixed Use —Office and Institutional” by respondent Town of Chapel Hill. Petitioner is Northwood Homeowners Association, Inc. of Northwood subdivision which is located directly across N.C. 86 from the proposed Chapel Hill North site.

Petitioner filed a petition for writ of certiorari dated 21 May 1991 with Orange County Superior Court, praying the court to “declare that the Special Use Permit is null and void and of no effect; or, if appropriate, . . . [to] remand the Special Use Permit to Respondent’s Town Council for action consistent with the Court’s findings.” The superior court affirmed the decision of the Council *631 and dismissed the petition for certiorari. From this order, petitioner appeals to our Court.

In reviewing petitioner’s brief presented on this appeal, we note petitioner has failed to meet the requirements of N.C.R. App. P. 28(b). N.C.R. App. P. 28(b) states:

Content of Appellant’s Brief. An appellant’s brief in any appeal shall contain, under appropriate headings, and in the form prescribed by Rule 28(g) and the Appendixes to these rules, in the following order:
(1) A cover page, followed by a table of contents and table of authorities required by Rule 28(g).
(2) A statement of the questions presented for review.
(3) A concise statement of the procedural history of the case. This shall indicate the nature of the case and summarize the course of proceedings up to the taking of the appeal before the court.
(4) A full and complete statement of the facts. This should be a non-argumentative summary of all material facts underlying the matter in controversy which are necessary to understand all questions presented for review, supported by references to pages in the transcript of proceedings, the record on appeal, or exhibits, as the case may be.
(5) An argument, to contain the contentions of the appellant with respect to each question presented. Each question shall be separately stated. Immediately following each question shall be a reference to the assignments of error pertinent to the question, identified by their numbers and by the pages at which they appear in the printed record on appeal. Assignments of error not set out in the appellant’s brief, or in support of which no reason or argument is stated or authority cited, will be taken as abandoned.
The body of the argument shall contain citations of the authorities upon which the appellant relies. Evidence or other proceedings material to the question presented may be narrated or quoted in the body of the argument, with appropriate reference to the record on appeal or the transcript of proceedings, or the exhibits.
*632 (6) A short conclusion stating the precise relief sought.
(7) Identification of counsel by signature, typed name, office address and telephone number.
(8) The proof of service required by Rule 26(d).
(9) The appendix required by Rule 28(d).

“Only those who properly appeal from the judgment of the trial divisions can get relief in the appellate divisions.” Sessoms v. Sessoms, 76 N.C. App. 338, 339, 332 S.E.2d 511, 513 (1985). “The Rules of Appellate Procedure are mandatory and failure to follow the rules subjects an appeal to dismissal.” Wiseman v. Wiseman, 68 N.C. App. 252, 255, 314 S.E.2d 566, 567-68 (1984) (citation omitted).

Specifically, petitioner herein has violated N.C.R. App. P. 28(b)(4) and 28(b)(5). Although petitioner presents three questions for review to this Court, petitioner evidently intertwines the statement of the facts, the three questions and all arguments into the body of the brief.

Petitioner has failed to set out a full and complete statement of the facts. This is to be a non-argumentative summary of all material facts underlying the matter in controversy which are necessary to understand all of the questions presented for review, supported by references to pages in the transcript of proceedings, the record on appeal or exhibits. Petitioner has further failed to set out each argument, containing the contentions of petitioner with respect to each question presented. Finally, petitioner has failed to state each question separately, and has failed to follow each question with a reference to the assignments of error pertinent to the question, identified by their numbers and by the pages at which they appear in the printed record on appeal. Cf., Fine v. Fine, 103 N.C. App. 642, 406 S.E.2d 631 (1991).

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed.

Judges ORR and McCRODDEN concur.

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

Related

In re: S.J.
Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2026
In the Matter of Bb
628 S.E.2d 867 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2006)
Consolidated Electrical Distributors, Inc. v. Dorsey
613 S.E.2d 518 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2005)
State v. Canellas
596 S.E.2d 889 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2004)
Poor v. Hill
530 S.E.2d 838 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2000)
Chicora Country Club, Inc. v. Town of Erwin
493 S.E.2d 797 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1997)
Matter of Hunt
489 S.E.2d 428 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1997)
Morrison-Tiffin v. Hampton
451 S.E.2d 650 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
436 S.E.2d 282, 112 N.C. App. 630, 1993 N.C. App. LEXIS 1200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/northwood-homeowners-association-inc-v-town-of-chapel-hill-ncctapp-1993.