Wells v. Jackson

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Wells v. Jackson

355 S.E.2d 837, 85 N.C. App. 718, 1987 N.C. App. LEXIS 2650

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedMay 19, 1987

DocketNo. 8626SC1208

StatusPublished

This text of 355 S.E.2d 837 (Wells v. Jackson) 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

Wells v. Jackson, 355 S.E.2d 837, 85 N.C. App. 718, 1987 N.C. App. LEXIS 2650 (N.C. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PHILLIPS, Judge.

When this case was tried attorney fees could be allowed under G.S. 6-21.1 only “where the judgment for recovery of damages” was $5,000 or less, and defendant’s sole assignment of error asserts that the trial court erred by awarding attorney fees in this case because the “principal amount of the judgment was in an amount greater than $5,000.” Obviously, this assignment is without foundation, as the principal amount of the judgment was $4,665. His argument that G.S. 6-21.1 does not authorize the allowance of counsel fees because the verdict was for more than $5,000 is unavailing; the statute refers only to the amount of the judgment and we have no authority to enlarge it.

No error.

Judges COZORT and GREENE concur.

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

PHILLIPS, Judge.

When this case was tried attorney fees could be allowed under G.S. 6-21.1 only “where the judgment for recovery of damages” was $5,000 or less, and defendant’s sole assignment of error asserts that the trial court erred by awarding attorney fees in this case because the “principal amount of the judgment was in an amount greater than $5,000.” Obviously, this assignment is without foundation, as the principal amount of the judgment was $4,665. His argument that G.S. 6-21.1 does not authorize the allowance of counsel fees because the verdict was for more than $5,000 is unavailing; the statute refers only to the amount of the judgment and we have no authority to enlarge it.

No error.

Judges COZORT and GREENE concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

355 S.E.2d 837, 85 N.C. App. 718, 1987 N.C. App. LEXIS 2650, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wells-v-jackson-ncctapp-1987.