In re: Lyle DippellÂ, 249 N.C. App. 610

Petitioner (Kenneth Dippel) filed on June 8, 2015, seeking adjudication that his father, Lyle Dippel (respondent), was incompetent and requesting appointment of a guardian.
Petitioner alleged respondent was totally disabled (VA) and had executed a durable power of attorney to petitioner’s brother, Michael, while lacking capacity.
An interim guardian ad litem was appointed; petitioner moved to recuse the Columbus County Clerk for alleged conflict but the clerk retained the case.
On August 12, 2015 the assistant clerk held a hearing and entered an order finding petitioner had not proved incompetence by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence and dismissed the proceeding.
Petitioner appealed the clerk’s order to superior court; respondent and Michael moved to dismiss the appeal arguing petitioner lacked standing and superior court lacked jurisdiction under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 35A-1115.
The trial court dismissed the appeal; the Court of Appeals reversed, holding § 35A-1115 permits an aggrieved party to appeal any clerk order determining the issue of incompetence (including dismissals).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an aggrieved party may appeal a clerk’s order dismissing a petition for adjudication of incompetence under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 35A-1115	Dippel: § 35A-1115 allows appeal to superior court from clerk orders determining incompetence, including orders finding respondent not incompetent	Respondent: § 35A-1115 only allows appeal from orders adjudicating that a person is incompetent (not from dismissals) and petitioner therefore lacks standing	Court of Appeals: Reverse — § 35A-1115 permits appeal by an aggrieved party from any clerk order adjudicating the issue of incompetence, including dismissals; petitioner has standing and superior court has jurisdiction

Lassiter ex rel. Baize v. N.C. Baptist Hosps., Inc., 368 N.C. 367 (discusses de novo review for statutory interpretation)
In re D.S., 364 N.C. 184 (statutory construction principles in competency context)
First Bank v. S & R Grandview, L.L.C., 232 N.C. App. 544 (clarifies primary objective of statutory interpretation)
State v. Beck, 359 N.C. 611 (addresses when judicial construction is required for ambiguous statutes)
Burgess v. Your House of Raleigh, 326 N.C. 205 (principle on legislative intent and statutory ambiguity)
State v. Sherrod, 191 N.C. App. 776 (statute ambiguous when fairly susceptible to multiple meanings)