{ "id": 8523698, "name": "BOONE LUMBER, INC., Plaintiff v. ED SIGMON, ANDY SIGMON, and JOHN SIGMON, Defendants", "name_abbreviation": "Boone Lumber, Inc. v. Sigmon", "decision_date": "1991-08-20", "docket_number": "No. 9024SC1232", "first_page": "798", "last_page": "801", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "103 N.C. App. 798" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "381 S.E.2d 706", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "714" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "325 N.C. 152", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2491380 ], "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "165" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/325/0152-01" ] }, { "cite": "374 S.E.2d 641", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "643" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "92 N.C. App. 516", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8527304 ], "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "517" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/92/0516-01" ] }, { "cite": "275 S.E.2d 485", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "489" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "302 N.C. 332", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565508 ], "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "338" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/302/0332-01" ] }, { "cite": "349 S.E.2d 599", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "318 N.C. 417", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4732777, 4738513, 4738804, 4734109, 4737790 ], "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/318/0417-02", "/nc/318/0417-01", "/nc/318/0417-03", "/nc/318/0417-04", "/nc/318/0417-05" ] }, { "cite": "346 S.E.2d 205", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "82 N.C. App. 318", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8358878 ], "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/82/0318-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 398, "char_count": 7968, "ocr_confidence": 0.767, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.20552472364218918 }, "sha256": "10de19a81b85cbb5c432e0dc64a66586b5ff9d62454b585e717cacc8d89d5eb9", "simhash": "1:03af19053a9a416a", "word_count": 1272 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:27:13.805826+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Greene and Lewis concur." ], "parties": [ "BOONE LUMBER, INC., Plaintiff v. ED SIGMON, ANDY SIGMON, and JOHN SIGMON, Defendants" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "EAGLES, Judge.\nIn this appeal, defendants bring forth three assignments of error. First, defendants contend that the trial court erred in denying their motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Second, defendants contend that the trial court erred in allowing plaintiff\u2019s witness to testify in the form of an opinion on the ultimate issue in this case. Third, defendants contend that the trial court erred in failing to grant their motion for Rule 11 sanctions against plaintiff. We disagree and accordingly find no error.\nRegarding defendants\u2019 first assignment of error, we initially note that defendants introduced evidence after their motion for directed verdict was denied. By introducing evidence, defendants waived their G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50(a) motion for directed verdict made at the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence. Rice v. Wood, 82 N.C. App. 318, 346 S.E.2d 205, disc. review denied, 318 N.C. 417, 349 S.E.2d 599 (1986). Defendants failed to renew their motion for directed verdict at the close of all evidence. \u201cA motion for directed verdict at the close of all evidence is an absolute prerequisite to the post verdict motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 50(b)(1); Graves v. Walston, 302 N.C. 332, 338, 275 S.E.2d 485, 489 (1981).\u201d Jansen v. Collins, 92 N.C. App. 516, 517, 374 S.E.2d 641, 643 (1988). Defendants cannot have the denial of their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict reviewed on appeal because they failed to renew the motion for directed verdict at the close of all evidence. Id.\nNext, defendants assign as error the trial court\u2019s admission of John Greene\u2019s answer to the question: \u201cBased on your conversations with [defendant] Mr. Andy Sigmon, who did you believe was responsible for paying for the materials purchased from Boone Lumber?\u201d Greene responded, \u201cAndy told me that the financial backing was through Ed Sigmon, their father, that he and John was [sic] operating the business and there was no problem with us being paid for account [sic].\u201d Defendants contend that the trial court allowed plaintiff\u2019s witness \u201cto testify beyond concrete facts within his own knowledge, observation, and recollection . . . [and] to testify in the form of an opinion the ultimate issue in this case which was whether [defendants] were individually liable to [plaintiff] on an open account.\u201d We disagree.\nG.S. 8C-1, Rule 801(d) provides that \u201c[a] statement is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule if it is offered against a party and it is (A) his own statement, in either his individual or a representative capacity.\u201d While the question may have called for an answer that embraced the ultimate issue, the answer actually given was only a recital of what defendant Andy Sigmon had told the witness. Additionally, we note that Andy Sigmon testified when defendants presented their evidence. The jury had the opportunity to weigh the credibility of both John Greene and Andy Sigmon. Accordingly, we find no prejudicial error.\nFinally, defendants contend that the trial court erred in failing to grant their motion for Rule 11 sanctions against plaintiff because of an alleged contradiction between John Greene\u2019s affidavit and his subsequent testimony at trial. \u201cThe trial court\u2019s decision to impose or not to impose mandatory sanctions under N.C.G.S. 1A-1, Rule 11(a) is reviewable de novo as a legal issue.\u201d Turner v. Duke University, 325 N.C. 152, 165, 381 S.E.2d 706, 714 (1989). In his affidavit, Greene stated that he \u201cinvestigated the integrity and financial condition of the individual defendants, particularly the defendant, Ed Sigmon.\u201d At trial, Greene testified that reputable people in the community told him that Sigmon had a good reputation, that he heard on several occasions that Ed Sigmon\u2019s \u201cnet worth\u201d was \u201cpretty good,\u201d and that upon recalling his past dealings with the defendants, he found \u201cno reason to question their [defendants\u2019] credit.\u201d Assuming without deciding that the execution of the affidavit is a document referred to in Rule 11, we find no contradiction and conclude that defendants\u2019 assignment of error is without merit.\nWe find no error in the trial court\u2019s denial of defendants\u2019 motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict and in the trial court\u2019s admission of the testimony of John Greene. We affirm the trial court\u2019s denial of Rule 11 sanctions against plaintiff.\nIn the trial, no error; as to Rule 11 sanctions, affirmed.\nJudges Greene and Lewis concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "EAGLES, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Miller and Moseley, by Paul E. Miller, Jr., for plaintiff-appellee.", "Come, Pitts, Come, Grant & Edwards, P.A., by Ray G. Come, for defendant-appellants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "BOONE LUMBER, INC., Plaintiff v. ED SIGMON, ANDY SIGMON, and JOHN SIGMON, Defendants\nNo. 9024SC1232\n(Filed 20 August 1991)\n1. Rules of Civil Procedure \u00a7\u00a7 50.1, 50.5 (NCI3d)\u2014 motion for directed verdict \u2014 effect of failure to renew at close of evidence\nBy introducing evidence, defendants waived their Rule 50(a) motion for directed verdict made at the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence. Furthermore, defendants cannot have the denial of their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict reviewed on appeal because they failed to renew the motion for directed verdict at the close of all the evidence. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 50(b)(1).\nAm Jur 2d, Trial \u00a7 539.\n2. Evidence \u00a7 34.1 (NCI3d)\u2014 admission of party opponent\nTestimony by plaintiff\u2019s president that one defendant told him that he and another defendant were operating a business with the financial backing of the third defendant and that there was no problem with plaintiff being paid for their account was competent as an admission of a party opponent under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 8C-1, Rule 801(d).\nAm Jur 2d, Evidence \u00a7 658.\n3. Rules of Civil Procedure \u00a7 11 (NCI3d)\u2014 no contradiction between affidavit and testimony \u2014 Rule 11 sanctions properly denied\nThere was no contradiction between the affidavit of plaintiff\u2019s president and his subsequent trial testimony which would support defendants\u2019 motion for Rule 11(a) sanctions against plaintiff.\nAm Jur 2d, Witnesses \u00a7 618.\nAPPEAL by defendants from judgment entered 1 February 1990 by Judge Chase B. Saunders in WATAUGA County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 5 June 1991.\nPlaintiff Boone Lumber, Inc., sued defendants individually in this civil action for the unpaid balance of $23,460.00 for materials sold and delivered to defendants on an open account. On 29-30 January 1990, the matter was tried before a jury. John Greene, plaintiff\u2019s president, testified that plaintiff agreed to establish an open account for defendants at the request of defendant Andy Sigmon who told him that all three defendants would be financially responsible for the account. Additionally, Greene testified that the account was opened under the name of \u201cSmokey Gap Log Homes\u201d and that this name appeared on plaintiff\u2019s records and on billings sent to defendants. Greene further testified that Andy Sigmon and John Sigmon each stated on different occasions that the owners of Smokey Gap Log Homes were Ed Sigmon, Andy Sigmon, and John Sigmon. Greene also testified that defendants never indicated to plaintiff that the account was for a corporation and that throughout his business relationship with defendants, he believed that Smokey Gap Log Homes was a partnership.\nAt the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence, defendants\u2019 motion for directed verdict was denied. Defendants then introduced evidence to prove that they were not individually liable on the open account and that only Smokey Gap Log Homes, Inc., a North Carolina corporation, owed the debt to plaintiff. Defendants Andy Sigmon and John Sigmon testified. At the close of all the evidence, defendants failed to renew their motion for a directed verdict. The jury\u2019s verdict found defendants jointly and severally liable to plaintiff in the amount of $23,460.00. The trial court denied defendants\u2019 motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Defendants appeal.\nMiller and Moseley, by Paul E. Miller, Jr., for plaintiff-appellee.\nCome, Pitts, Come, Grant & Edwards, P.A., by Ray G. Come, for defendant-appellants." }, "file_name": "0798-01", "first_page_order": 828, "last_page_order": 831 }