Smith v. Taylor

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Smith v. Taylor

261 S.E.2d 19, 44 N.C. App. 363, 28 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 328, 1979 N.C. App. LEXIS 3247

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedDecember 18, 1979

Docket793DC429

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 261 S.E.2d 19 (Smith v. Taylor) 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

Smith v. Taylor, 261 S.E.2d 19, 44 N.C. App. 363, 28 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 328, 1979 N.C. App. LEXIS 3247 (N.C. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

VAUGHN, Judge.

Defendants’ argument that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is without merit. It does not affirmatively appear on the face of the complaint that plaintiffs cannot recover under any state of facts which could be proved in support of the claim, and the complaint gives sufficient notice of the transaction that produced the claim to enable defendants to understand the basis of the claim, to enable them to file a responsive pleading and, by using appropriate discovery, get any additional information considered necessary. Sutton v. Duke, 277 N.C. 94, 176 S.E. 2d 161 (1970).

Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment was properly allowed only if the record at that stage of the proceeding disclosed that there were no genuine issues as to any material facts and that, on those facts, plaintiffs were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56.

The appropriate section of the Uniform Commercial Code provides, in part, as follows:

“(1) . . . there is in a contract for sale a warranty by the seller that . . . (b) the goods shall be delivered free from any security interest or other lien or encumbrances of which the buyer at the time of contracting has no knowledge.” G.S. 25-2-312 (emphasis added).

In support of their motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs have shown that there are no genuine issues of material facts as to the sale of the tractor to plaintiffs for $2800.00 and existence of a lien on the property resulting in plaintiffs’ loss of the property under that prior lien and, consequently, the loss of value for the purchase price paid. Moreover, defendants are not saved by their own alleged ignorance of the existence of the lien.

*365 On this motion for summary judgment, however, the burden was on these plaintiffs, as movants, to produce evidence on every element necessary for them to prove in order to be entitled to judgment. Tolbert v. Tea Co., 22 N.C. App. 491, 206 S.E. 2d 816 (1974). In order to recover on the warranty provided by this section of the code, plaintiffs must prove the presence of a lien or encumbrance of which they had no knowledge. Plaintiffs neither alleged nor offered evidentiary material to show that they had no knowledge of the existence of the lien. Summary judgment was, therefore, inappropriate and must be reversed.

Reversed and remanded.

Judges WEBB and MARTIN (Harry C.) concur.

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

VAUGHN, Judge.

Defendants’ argument that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is without merit. It does not affirmatively appear on the face of the complaint that plaintiffs cannot recover under any state of facts which could be proved in support of the claim, and the complaint gives sufficient notice of the transaction that produced the claim to enable defendants to understand the basis of the claim, to enable them to file a responsive pleading and, by using appropriate discovery, get any additional information considered necessary. Sutton v. Duke, 277 N.C. 94, 176 S.E. 2d 161 (1970).

Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment was properly allowed only if the record at that stage of the proceeding disclosed that there were no genuine issues as to any material facts and that, on those facts, plaintiffs were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56.

The appropriate section of the Uniform Commercial Code provides, in part, as follows:

“(1) . . . there is in a contract for sale a warranty by the seller that . . . (b) the goods shall be delivered free from any security interest or other lien or encumbrances of which the buyer at the time of contracting has no knowledge.” G.S. 25-2-312 (emphasis added).

In support of their motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs have shown that there are no genuine issues of material facts as to the sale of the tractor to plaintiffs for $2800.00 and existence of a lien on the property resulting in plaintiffs’ loss of the property under that prior lien and, consequently, the loss of value for the purchase price paid. Moreover, defendants are not saved by their own alleged ignorance of the existence of the lien.

*365 On this motion for summary judgment, however, the burden was on these plaintiffs, as movants, to produce evidence on every element necessary for them to prove in order to be entitled to judgment. Tolbert v. Tea Co., 22 N.C. App. 491, 206 S.E. 2d 816 (1974). In order to recover on the warranty provided by this section of the code, plaintiffs must prove the presence of a lien or encumbrance of which they had no knowledge. Plaintiffs neither alleged nor offered evidentiary material to show that they had no knowledge of the existence of the lien. Summary judgment was, therefore, inappropriate and must be reversed.

Reversed and remanded.

Judges WEBB and MARTIN (Harry C.) concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 S.E.2d 19, 44 N.C. App. 363, 28 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 328, 1979 N.C. App. LEXIS 3247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-taylor-ncctapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack