{
  "id": 5313771,
  "name": "MALCOLM M. LOWDER and wife, PATTY STIWELL LOWDER, Petitioners v. W. HORACE LOWDER and wife, JEANNE R. LOWDER, and LOIS L. HUDSON and husband, BILLY JOE HUDSON, Respondents",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lowder v. Lowder",
  "decision_date": "1992-04-21",
  "docket_number": "No. 9019SC1309",
  "first_page": "145",
  "last_page": "146",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "106 N.C. App. 145"
    }
  ],
  "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": "91 ALR3d 661",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 3d",
      "opinion_index": -1
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 219,
    "char_count": 2843,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.751,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7505549551344499
    },
    "sha256": "63c954d7b31cd29846bf3824fffa89c6f2abaa3db8298d7655a2ae90a3652d3f",
    "simhash": "1:f72fd509ab5afc8d",
    "word_count": 463
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:35:11.401464+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges LEWIS and Wynn concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "MALCOLM M. LOWDER and wife, PATTY STIWELL LOWDER, Petitioners v. W. HORACE LOWDER and wife, JEANNE R. LOWDER, and LOIS L. HUDSON and husband, BILLY JOE HUDSON, Respondents"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nThis is the twenty-sixth appeal in a series of cases emanating from Malcolm v. All Star Mills, Stanly Co. 79CVS015. In this latest guise, respondents once again have raised the jurisdiction issue which repeatedly has been rejected by this Court. We note nothing new in respondents\u2019 arguments and find this appeal to be frivolous under N.C.R. App. P. 34(a)(1) and (a)(2). Pursuant to Rule 34(d) we direct that within not more than thirty days from the certification of this opinion respondents shall show cause in writing as to why this appeal should not be dismissed and why they should not be taxed for all reasonable expenses and costs incurred, including reasonable attorney fees and any other appropriate sanction. See N.C.R. App. P. 34(b)(1) and (b)(2); N.C.R. App. P. 35.\nRemanded.\nJudges LEWIS and Wynn concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ARNOLD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Moore & Van Allen, by James P. McLoughlin, Jr., for petitioner appellees.",
      "W. Horace Lowder, respondent appellant, pro se.",
      "Lois L. Hudson, respondent appellant, pro se."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MALCOLM M. LOWDER and wife, PATTY STIWELL LOWDER, Petitioners v. W. HORACE LOWDER and wife, JEANNE R. LOWDER, and LOIS L. HUDSON and husband, BILLY JOE HUDSON, Respondents\nNo. 9019SC1309\n(Filed 21 April 1992)\nAppeal and Error \u00a7 510 (NCI4th) \u2014 ' frivolous appeal \u2014 sanctions \u2014 show cause order\nRespondents\u2019 appeal is frivolous where they have again raised the jurisdiction issue which repeatedly has been rejected by the Court of Appeals, and respondents are directed to show cause in writing as to why this appeal should not be dismissed and why they should not be taxed for all reasonable expenses and costs incurred, including attorney fees and any other appropriate sanctions. Appellate Rules 34(a)(1), (a)(2), (b)(1) and (b)(2); Appellate Rule 35.\nAm Jur 2d, Appeal and Error \u00a7\u00a7 912, 1024.\nAward of damages for dilatory tactics in prosecuting appeal in state court. 91 ALR3d 661.\nAppeal by respondents from order entered 15 August 1990 by Judge Howard R. Greeson, Jr. in MONTGOMERY County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 17 March 1992.\nReal estate belonging to Consolidated Industries, Inc. was conveyed by a receivers\u2019 deed to Malcolm M. Lowder, W. Horace Lowder and Lois Lowder Hudson as tenants in common on 30 December 1988. Petitioners then filed for partition. The trial court appointed commissioners to divide the property. Respondents filed no exceptions and did not appeal either the commissioners\u2019 original or amended report, which the trial court confirmed.\nSix weeks later respondents filed a \u201cMotion to Delay Judgment and Hold in Abeyance.\u201d The trial court denied respondents\u2019 motion and imposed sanctions of $700.00 upon them for petitioners\u2019 reasonably incurred fees and expenses in responding to the motion. From the order and judgment denying respondents\u2019 motion and imposing sanctions, respondents appeal.\nMoore & Van Allen, by James P. McLoughlin, Jr., for petitioner appellees.\nW. Horace Lowder, respondent appellant, pro se.\nLois L. Hudson, respondent appellant, pro se."
  },
  "file_name": "0145-01",
  "first_page_order": 175,
  "last_page_order": 176
}