{
  "id": 8548201,
  "name": "JAMES C. EVANS and wife, ALICE B. EVANS, and T. R. LAWING REALTY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellees v. DOROTHY ROSE, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Evans v. Rose",
  "decision_date": "1971-08-04",
  "docket_number": "No. 7126DC424",
  "first_page": "165",
  "last_page": "166",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "12 N.C. App. 165"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 221,
    "char_count": 3267,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.546,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.154110413531597e-07,
      "percentile": 0.769004679423395
    },
    "sha256": "c4a36d495013b8c7d9d055800f99fca1246842d7cf3706088120d0b288a4c001",
    "simhash": "1:a4a73954680993cb",
    "word_count": 500
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:50:27.087613+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Vaughn and Graham concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "JAMES C. EVANS and wife, ALICE B. EVANS, and T. R. LAWING REALTY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellees v. DOROTHY ROSE, Defendant-Appellant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BROCK, Judge.\nThe only question presented to this Court is whether the trial judge erred in striking from the answer defendant\u2019s \u201caffirmative defenses.\u201d The questions argued by defendant are succinctly stated in defendant\u2019s brief as follows:\n\u201cThe lower court erred in striking those portions of defendant\u2019s answer which alleged that plaintiff sought to evict defendant solely in retaliation for defendant\u2019s exercise of constitutionally protected rights\n\u201cA. The requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution must be observed when the parties to an action assert conflicting claims of right and the conflict is resolved by a state court according to state law. Consequently, the competing private rights of the plaintiff and defendant must be determined by the balancing of interests requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution\n\u201cB. In an action in summary ejectment, the allegation of a retaliatory motive on the part of a landlord against the tenant for the exercise of constitutional rights by the tenant, if proved, constitutes an affirmative defense to the action where the retaliatory motive was the primary reason for the institution of the action\u201d\nWe hold that the trial judge was correct in striking the defendant\u2019s \u201caffirmative defenses\u201d as being irrelevant to the landlords\u2019 right to recover possession of their property.\nAffirmed.\nJudges Vaughn and Graham concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BROCK, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "No appearance for plaintiffs.",
      "Legal Aid Society of Mecklenburg County, by Gail F. Barber and James A. Long IV for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JAMES C. EVANS and wife, ALICE B. EVANS, and T. R. LAWING REALTY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellees v. DOROTHY ROSE, Defendant-Appellant\nNo. 7126DC424\n(Filed 4 August 1971)\nEjectment \u00a7 1; Landlord and Tenant \u00a7 13 \u2014 summary ejectment \u2014 retaliation for airing grievances of tenants\nAllegations by a tenant that the landlords\u2019 efforts to eject her from her apartment are in retaliation for her conduct in airing grievances of several other tenants constitute no defense to the landlords\u2019 action in summary ejectment to remove the tenant from the apartment, and were properly stricken by the court.\nAppeal by defendant from Stukes, District Judge, 1 February 1971 Session of District Court held in Mecklenburg County.\nPlaintiffs instituted an action in summary ejectment to move defendant from an apartment owned by plaintiffs. Defendant admits that she is a week-to-week tenant of plaintiffs, that plaintiffs have demanded possession of the premises, and that she has refused to surrender same. Defendant alleges, under what she entitled \u201cfirst affirmative defense,\u201d \u201csecond affirmative defense,\u201d and \u201cthird and final affirmative defense,\u201d in effect that plaintiffs\u2019 effort to eject her is in retaliation for her conduct in airing grievances of several of plaintiffs\u2019 tenants.\nUpon plaintiffs\u2019 motion the trial judge entered an order effectively striking all of defendant\u2019s first, second, and third affirmative defenses upon the grounds that they were irrelevant because if \u201cfound and considered to be true, the same would be insufficient in law to establish any affirmative defense to plaintiffs\u2019 complaint.\u201d The trial judge further rendered judgment for plaintiffs upon the pleadings under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 12 (c).\nNo appearance for plaintiffs.\nLegal Aid Society of Mecklenburg County, by Gail F. Barber and James A. Long IV for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0165-01",
  "first_page_order": 191,
  "last_page_order": 192
}