Pardue v. Northwestern Bank

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Pardue v. Northwestern Bank

336 S.E.2d 456, 77 N.C. App. 834, 1985 N.C. App. LEXIS 4396

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedNovember 19, 1985

DocketNo. 8523SC250

StatusPublished

This text of 336 S.E.2d 456 (Pardue v. Northwestern Bank) 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

Pardue v. Northwestern Bank, 336 S.E.2d 456, 77 N.C. App. 834, 1985 N.C. App. LEXIS 4396 (N.C. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

WELLS, Judge.

The defendant bank and substitute trustee argue that they are entitled to summary judgment because Reba Pardue admitted that she is not the owner of the property at issue in this case. They base their contention on the fact that Reba Pardue, upon receipt of defendants’ requests for admissions, admitted the “genuineness” of inheritance tax reports, a bankruptcy petition and a financial statement she filed with the defendant bank. Reba Par-due did not mention the property or claim any interest in the property on any of these documents. Contrary to the contention of the defendant bank and substitute trustee, an admission of the “genuineness” of a document is not an admission of a document’s veracity. To admit that a document is genuine is to admit that it is the document it purports to be, not that the statements on the documents are true.

The party moving for summary judgment has the burden of clearly establishing the lack of any triable issue of material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Caldwell v. Deese, 288 N.C. 375, 218 S.E. 2d 379 (1975). Reba Par-due submitted the affidavits of some of the grantors of the 3 June 1971 deed to “Stacy Pardue.” In these affidavits, the grantors assert that Reba Pardue’s husband, James Stacy Pardue, was the grantee under the deed. Whether James Stacy Pardue or Gene Stacy Pardue was the grantee under the 3 June 1971 deed is an unresolved issue of material fact. Therefore, summary judgment was improvidently granted.

The judgment appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.

.Chief Judge HEDRICK and Judge EAGLES concur.

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

WELLS, Judge.

The defendant bank and substitute trustee argue that they are entitled to summary judgment because Reba Pardue admitted that she is not the owner of the property at issue in this case. They base their contention on the fact that Reba Pardue, upon receipt of defendants’ requests for admissions, admitted the “genuineness” of inheritance tax reports, a bankruptcy petition and a financial statement she filed with the defendant bank. Reba Par-due did not mention the property or claim any interest in the property on any of these documents. Contrary to the contention of the defendant bank and substitute trustee, an admission of the “genuineness” of a document is not an admission of a document’s veracity. To admit that a document is genuine is to admit that it is the document it purports to be, not that the statements on the documents are true.

The party moving for summary judgment has the burden of clearly establishing the lack of any triable issue of material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Caldwell v. Deese, 288 N.C. 375, 218 S.E. 2d 379 (1975). Reba Par-due submitted the affidavits of some of the grantors of the 3 June 1971 deed to “Stacy Pardue.” In these affidavits, the grantors assert that Reba Pardue’s husband, James Stacy Pardue, was the grantee under the deed. Whether James Stacy Pardue or Gene Stacy Pardue was the grantee under the 3 June 1971 deed is an unresolved issue of material fact. Therefore, summary judgment was improvidently granted.

The judgment appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.

.Chief Judge HEDRICK and Judge EAGLES concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

336 S.E.2d 456, 77 N.C. App. 834, 1985 N.C. App. LEXIS 4396, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pardue-v-northwestern-bank-ncctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack