{
  "id": 8527493,
  "name": "LILLIE LUCILLE HARWARD v. CHERYL SMITH",
  "name_abbreviation": "Harward v. Smith",
  "decision_date": "1994-04-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 9310SC633",
  "first_page": "263",
  "last_page": "265",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "114 N.C. App. 263"
    }
  ],
  "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": "440 S.E.2d 319",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "321"
        },
        {
          "page": "320",
          "parenthetical": "emphasis in original"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "113 N.C. App. 823",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8524894
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "826"
        },
        {
          "page": "824"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/113/0823-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 292,
    "char_count": 6039,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.771,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.001866138506279e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8525336805350427
    },
    "sha256": "d19f44a6480fa137e3b7cebb92f882a6c1820149ac046d1d4317a3c4b8114e20",
    "simhash": "1:affaefe948452a2f",
    "word_count": 1013
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:01:59.295429+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges JOHNSON and JOHN concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "LILLIE LUCILLE HARWARD v. CHERYL SMITH"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "GREENE, Judge.\nCheryl Smith (defendant) appeals from judgment entered 20 May 1993 ordering her to pay to Lillie Lucille Harward (plaintiff) $7,001.00, taxing as costs to defendant plaintiff\u2019s attorney\u2019s fees of $4,808.00, and taxing the costs of the action against defendant.\nThis action arose out of an automobile accident between plaintiff and defendant which occurred on 11 February 1991. On 4 December 1991, plaintiff filed suit against defendant seeking in excess of $10,000.00 in compensatory damages based upon the alleged negligence of defendant. On 6 May 1993, defendant served upon plaintiff, and filed with the superior court, an Offer of Judgment which reads as follows:\nDefendant, pursuant to G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 68, more than ten days before trial, offers to allow judgment to be taken against her in this action in the lump sum amount of $7,001.00 for all damages, attorneys\u2019 fees taxable as costs, and the remaining costs accrued at the time this offer is filed. This offer is made for the purposes set out in G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 68(a), and for no other purpose.\nOn 7 May 1993, plaintiff\u2019s attorney notified defendant\u2019s attorney in writing that plaintiff accepted the Offer of Judgment. Plaintiff\u2019s Notice of Acceptance, filed with the superior court on 7 May 1993, read as follows:\nThe plaintiff hereby accepts Offer of Judgment in the sum of $7,001.00 tendered by defendant together with cost accrued at the time said offer was filed.\nOn 17 May 1993, plaintiff requested that the court assess court costs and interest against defendant in addition to the amount set forth in defendant\u2019s Offer of Judgment. After hearing arguments of counsel, the court found and concluded that plaintiff was entitled to recover costs in addition to the lump sum Offer of Judgment. Judgment was entered against defendant and defendant was ordered to pay plaintiff the $7,001.00 and $4,808.00 for attorney\u2019s fees taxable as costs and prejudgment interest from the date the complaint was filed.\nThe issue presented is whether the defendant can be required to pay costs and plaintiff\u2019s attorney\u2019s fees in addition to the $7,001.00 figure in the Offer of Judgment.\nThis Court has recently addressed this issue in Aikens v. Ludlum, 113 N.C. App. 823, 440 S.E.2d 319 (1994). In Aikens, we held that lump sum offers of judgment are permissible, but that the defendant making the offer bears the responsibility of making \u201csure that he has used language which conveys that he is making a lump sum offer.\u201d Aikens, 113 N.C. App. at 826, 440 S.E.2d at 321. See also 2 G. Gray Wilson, North Carolina Civil Procedure \u00a7 68-2 (Supp. 1993) (hereinafter Wilson) (\u201cAn offer for a specified sum that includes costs or costs and attorney\u2019s fees is valid, such that acceptance precludes any further recovery or award beyond the amount stated in the offer.\u201d).\nIn Aikens, the defendant\u2019s Offer of Judgment read:\nDefendants, pursuant to G.S \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 68, more than ten days before trial, offers [sic] to allow judgment to be taken against them in this action in the amount of $10,001.00 for all damages and attorney\u2019s fees taxable as costs, together with the remaining costs accrued at the time this offer is filed.\nAikens, 113 N.C. App. at 824, 440 S.E.2d at 320 (emphasis in original). We held that the phrase \u201ctogether with the remaining costs accrued at the time this offer is filed\u201d created an ambiguity as to whether the offer of judgment was intended to include costs. We construed this ambiguity against the drafter of the offer of judgment and held that the offer of $10,001.00 included the plaintiff\u2019s damages and attorney\u2019s fees, but did not include the remaining costs accrued. In this case however, the Offer of Judgment created no ambiguity; it specifically offered to allow judgment to be taken against defendant \u201cin the lump sum amount of $7,001.00 for all damages, attorney\u2019s fees taxable as costs, and the remaining costs accrued at the time this offer is filed.\u201d This language evinces an unmistakable intent that the $7,001.00 lump sum be payment not only for plaintiff\u2019s damages, but for her attorney\u2019s fees and the costs accrued at the time the Offer of Judgment was filed on 6 May 1993.\nBecause the acceptance contained language somewhat different from the language of the offer, there may be some question as to whether plaintiff accepted the offer as tendered or made a counteroffer. See Wilson \u00a7 68-2 (\u201cAcceptance of an offer of judgment must be unconditional.\u201d). It is unnecessary, however, that we address this issue because it has not been assigned as error by the plaintiff nor has it been argued in this Court. Furthermore, it does not appear that the issue was raised before the trial court.\nThe superior court\u2019s order requiring defendant to pay plaintiff\u2019s attorney\u2019s fees and the costs of the action in addition to the sum of $7,001.00 is reversed. Remand is unnecessary because the record does not reveal that any attorney\u2019s fees or costs accrued after 6 May 1993, the date the offer of judgment was filed.\nReversed.\nJudges JOHNSON and JOHN concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "GREENE, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "E. Gregory Stott for plaintiff-appellee.",
      "Bailey & Dixon, by David S. Coats, for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "LILLIE LUCILLE HARWARD v. CHERYL SMITH\nNo. 9310SC633\n(Filed 5 April 1994)\nJudgments \u00a7 115 (NCI4th)\u2014 lump sum offer of judgment \u2014 inclusion of attorney\u2019s fees and costs\nDefendant\u2019s offer of judgment \u201cin the lump sum of $7,001.00 for all damages, attorneys\u2019 fees taxable as costs, and the remaining costs accrued at the time this offer is filed\u201d evinces an unmistakable intent that the $7,001.00 lump sum be payment not only for plaintiff\u2019s damages but also for her attorney\u2019s fees and the costs accrued at the time the offer was filed, and the trial court erred by ordering defendant to pay plaintiff\u2019s attorney\u2019s fees and the costs of the action in addition to the sum of $7,001.00.\nAm Jur 2d, Costs \u00a7 22; Judgments \u00a7 1137.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment entered 20 May 1993 in Wake County Superior Court by Judge Narley L. Cashwell. Heard in the Court of Appeals 9 March 1994.\nE. Gregory Stott for plaintiff-appellee.\nBailey & Dixon, by David S. Coats, for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0263-01",
  "first_page_order": 291,
  "last_page_order": 293
}