797 S.E.2d 712
N.C. Ct. App.2017Background
- Cherry Community Organization (Plaintiff) purchased and rehabilitated housing in Cherry Neighborhood and entered agreement(s) with StoneHunt, LLC (Defendant) culminating in deeds, a promissory note, and related transactions in 2005–2006. A deed initially named a non-existent StoneHunt Development, LLC; a correction deed was later recorded and the promissory note was paid and marked satisfied.
- In September 2015 Plaintiff sued seeking partial rescission of deeds, specific performance regarding development obligations, and money damages; Plaintiff filed a lis pendens on defendant-owned property.
- Defendant moved to dismiss some claims as time-barred; the trial court granted dismissal in part on February 10, 2016. Plaintiff appealed that dismissal to this Court.
- While that appeal was pending, Defendant moved to cancel the lis pendens; the trial court granted cancellation and denied Plaintiff’s motion to stay the cancellation. The trial court entered both orders on May 26, 2016; Plaintiff timely appealed those orders.
- This Court previously affirmed dismissal of some claims and reversed dismissal of others, leaving the case still pending in the trial court (making the appeal interlocutory in nature).
- In this appeal, Plaintiff failed to establish that the May 26 interlocutory orders were either final judgments or affected a substantial right; the Court dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff's appeal of the trial court's cancellation of the lis pendens and denial of stay | The orders were immediately appealable — either final or affecting a substantial right warranting interlocutory review | Orders are interlocutory and Plaintiff has not shown any substantial right that would be jeopardized absent immediate review | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction: Plaintiff did not meet burden to show finality or that a substantial right was affected; appeal dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Akers v. City of Mount Airy, 175 N.C. App. 777 (obligation to address interlocutory jurisdiction sua sponte)
- Jeffreys v. Raleigh Oaks Joint Venture, 115 N.C. App. 377 (two circumstances permitting interlocutory appeal: certified partial final judgment or deprivation of substantial right)
- Stanford v. Paris, 364 N.C. 306 (policy favoring single final-judgment appeals and disfavoring fragmentary interlocutory appeals)
- Larsen v. Black Diamond French Truffles, Inc., 772 S.E.2d 93 (appellant bears burden to show order affects a substantial right)
- Johnson v. Lucas, 168 N.C. App. 515 (appellant must include facts and argument showing challenged order affects a substantial right)