{
  "id": 8525591,
  "name": "THE COMMUNITY BANK, Plaintiff-Appellant v. RICHARD E. WHITLEY, WANDA M. WHITLEY, and MARINELAND OUTDOOR CENTER, INCORPORATED, Defendants-Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "Community Bank v. Whitley",
  "decision_date": "1994-11-01",
  "docket_number": "No. 9317SC1215",
  "first_page": "731",
  "last_page": "733",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "116 N.C. App. 731"
    }
  ],
  "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": "15 ALR3d 899",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 3d",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "428 S.E.2d 157",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "161",
          "parenthetical": "italics omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "333 N.C. 486",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2546781
      ],
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "491",
          "parenthetical": "italics omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/333/0486-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "435 S.E.2d 337",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "334 N.C. 621",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2530443,
        2532332,
        2530396,
        2531257,
        2532508
      ],
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/334/0621-03",
        "/nc/334/0621-02",
        "/nc/334/0621-05",
        "/nc/334/0621-04",
        "/nc/334/0621-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "430 S.E.2d 689",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "692"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "110 N.C. App. 531",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8525976
      ],
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "535"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/110/0531-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 296,
    "char_count": 4030,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.709,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.7783745280650816e-07,
      "percentile": 0.834944045000307
    },
    "sha256": "a9f4c1ab5ac6e30d676e3ae24fbc84d3ec0ac5f0977aa66c1f40b2bffe751240",
    "simhash": "1:0aab54ee17565664",
    "word_count": 616
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:55.005039+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Panel consisting of: Chief Judge Arnold, Judges Cozort and Lewis."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "THE COMMUNITY BANK, Plaintiff-Appellant v. RICHARD E. WHITLEY, WANDA M. WHITLEY, and MARINELAND OUTDOOR CENTER, INCORPORATED, Defendants-Appellees"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nPlaintiff appeals the denial of its motion for summary judgment. Typically, \u201cthe denial of a motion for summary judgment is a nonap-pealable interlocutory order.\u201d Northwestern Financial Group v. County of Gaston, 110 N.C. App. 531, 535, 430 S.E.2d 689, 692, disc. review denied, 334 N.C. 621, 435 S.E.2d 337 (1993). Despite this general rule, this Court will address the merits of such an appeal if \u201ca substantial right of one of the parties would be lost if the appeal were not heard prior to the final judgment.\u201d Id. Our Supreme Court has stated that \u201cthe denial of a motion for summary judgment based on the defense of res judicata may affect a substantial right.\u201d Bockweg v. Anderson, 333 N.C. 486, 491, 428 S.E.2d 157, 161 (1993) (italics omitted). A substantial right is likely to be affected where a possibility of inconsistent verdicts exists if the case proceeds to trial, but the facts of this case would not lead to such an outcome. Further, we do not believe these facts present a compelling case for premature review. Accordingly, plaintiffs appeal is dismissed as interlocutory.\nDismissed.\nPanel consisting of: Chief Judge Arnold, Judges Cozort and Lewis.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "House & Blanco, P.A., by John S. Harrison, for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Donnelly & DiRusso, by Gus L. Donnelly, for defendant appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE COMMUNITY BANK, Plaintiff-Appellant v. RICHARD E. WHITLEY, WANDA M. WHITLEY, and MARINELAND OUTDOOR CENTER, INCORPORATED, Defendants-Appellees\nNo. 9317SC1215\n(Filed 1 November 1994)\nAppeal and Error \u00a7 118 (NCI4th)\u2014 denial of summary judgment \u2014 appeal interlocutory\nPlaintiff\u2019s appeal of denial of its summary judgment motion is dismissed as interlocutory.\nAm Jur 2d, Appeal and Error \u00a7 104.\nReviewability of order denying motion for summary judgment. 15 ALR3d 899.\n. Appeal by plaintiff from order entered 24 August 1993 by Judge James A. Beaty, Jr., in Surry County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 3 October 1994.\nIn July of 1992, plaintiff sued defendants to recover over $250,000.00 following defendants\u2019 default on several promissory notes. The notes represented sums the Bank loaned defendants to purchase and operate Marineland, a boat dealership. Shortly after plaintiff brought this action, the trustee filed three foreclosure actions on the deeds of trust securing the notes. Before any property was foreclosed upon, however, the trial court granted defendants\u2019 motion to consolidate the foreclosures and the underlying action, thereby preventing plaintiff from proceeding with the foreclosures.\nIn response to plaintiffs complaint, defendants alleged counterclaims grounded in fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and unfair business practices. These counterclaims arose from the plaintiff\u2019s involvement, through the actions of its president, in the Whitleys\u2019 purchase of Marineland from Albert Hicks. More specifically, the Whitleys alleged that plaintiff\u2019s president made fraudulent statements and inducements to not only encourage the Whitleys to buy Marineland, but also to get them to obtain financing for the purchase through the Bank.\nIn its reply, plaintiff denied the counterclaims and asserted the affirmative defenses of res judicata, collateral estoppel, and judgment and satisfaction. These defenses were based on an earlier action between the Whitleys and Albert Hicks, Marineland\u2019s prior owner. In that suit, the Whitleys made similar counterclaims against Hicks after he sued them to recover monies due following the sale. The suit ended with a consent judgment and a cash payment to the Whitleys.\nOn 18 January 1993, plaintiff moved for summary judgment arguing that it should be allowed to proceed with the foreclosures. The trial court denied the motion. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment a second time on 20 July 1993, this time arguing that the counterclaims were barred by res judicata, collateral estoppel, and judgment and satisfaction. Again, the trial court denied its motion.\nFrom the order denying its second motion for summary judgment, plaintiff appeals.\nHouse & Blanco, P.A., by John S. Harrison, for plaintiff appellant.\nDonnelly & DiRusso, by Gus L. Donnelly, for defendant appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0731-01",
  "first_page_order": 761,
  "last_page_order": 763
}