The recent North Carolina Court of Appeals decision in Weishaupt-Smith v. Town of Banner Elk represents North Carolina’s first appellate ruling interpreting Rule 38(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure, which provides the second of three (3) categories in which substitution of a party to a dispute on appeal is permitted. Although this rule was adopted in 1975, courts remained silent on its interpretation until Weishaupt-Smith. Rule 38 Substitution of Parties Rule 38 provides three specific categories under which a party to a dispute on appeal or while appeal is pending may be substituted. The first, Rule 38(a), permits substitution when a party dies but the…
-
-
LAMARRE V. MARTINEZ: A (QUIET) DISCUSSION OF ACTIONS TO QUIET TITLE
The recent North Carolina Court of Appeals decision in LaMarre v. Martinez addresses an action to quiet title between parties to a real property transaction. Specifically, the court provides guidance for determining the applicable statute of limitations. Actions to Quiet Title In North Carolina, an action to quiet title may be brought to determine the validity of adverse claims by multiple persons to an estate or an interest in real property. The court’s role in such actions is to determine the rightful owner to a particular piece of real property. Disputes over rightful ownership to real property often arise in the context of interfamilial transfers or transfers that…
-
Master of Your Domain?: The Nuance of Eminent Domain and Charlotte’s Light Rail
Since before the establishment of the United States, governments have taken the land of private citizens. The issue was so fundamental to the founders of this country they wrote it into the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution which states, in part, “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The issue of what constitutes a taking, however, is still a matter of dispute in courts across the country, including the North Carolina Court of Appeals. On Tuesday, the Court published an opinion regarding whether a property owner was entitled to just compensation for the loss of visibility to a business due to the construction of a…
