{
  "id": 11919287,
  "name": "LINDA R. SHARP, Plaintiff v. DAVID C. MILLER, ROBERT F. WARWICK, STEPHEN LOCKE, LOWRIMORE, WARWICK & CO. and McGLADREY & PULLEN, Defendants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Sharp v. Miller",
  "decision_date": "1996-02-20",
  "docket_number": "No. COA95-167",
  "first_page": "616",
  "last_page": "619",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "121 N.C. App. 616"
    }
  ],
  "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": "458 S.E.2d 181",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "338 N.C. 669",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2518948,
        2517098,
        2517646,
        2517202,
        2520243
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/338/0669-05",
        "/nc/338/0669-02",
        "/nc/338/0669-01",
        "/nc/338/0669-04",
        "/nc/338/0669-03"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "449 S.E.2d 39",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "116 N.C. App. 513",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8524783
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/116/0513-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "460 U.S. 325",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6193330
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "342-43"
        },
        {
          "page": "113-14"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/460/0325-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "381 S.E.2d 706",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1989,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "714"
        },
        {
          "page": "714"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "325 N.C. 152",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2491380
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1989,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "165"
        },
        {
          "page": "165"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/325/0152-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "412 S.E.2d 327",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1992,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "332"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "330 N.C. 644",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2508834
      ],
      "year": 1992,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "655"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/330/0644-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "65 S.E. 612",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "year": 1909,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "612-13"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "151 N.C. 51",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "year": 1909,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "52"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "100 S.E.2d 860",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1957,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "866-67"
        },
        {
          "page": "866-67"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "247 N.C. 286",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626848
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1957,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "293-94"
        },
        {
          "page": "293-94"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/247/0286-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "257 S.E.2d 677",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "678"
        },
        {
          "page": "678"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "43 N.C. App. 53",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8549744
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "55"
        },
        {
          "page": "55"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/43/0053-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "463 S.E.2d 242",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1995,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "342 N.C. 194",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        796110,
        795921,
        796084,
        796057,
        795899
      ],
      "year": 1995,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/342/0194-04",
        "/nc/342/0194-05",
        "/nc/342/0194-01",
        "/nc/342/0194-03",
        "/nc/342/0194-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "354 S.E.2d 757",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "758"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 N.C. App. 338",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        12169904
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "340"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/85/0338-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "459 S.E.2d 71",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "73"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "119 N.C. App. 515",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11916250
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "517"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/119/0515-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "355 S.E.2d 838",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "840"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 N.C. App. 669",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        12170267
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "670"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/85/0669-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 456,
    "char_count": 7185,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.759,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.1077827361937853e-08,
      "percentile": 0.26674315761266393
    },
    "sha256": "d5e13e53ece5e0a25d5343a2efda3f39ae359285e634fe6710d468b5d8afd5b8",
    "simhash": "1:034bd6e234db0477",
    "word_count": 1139
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:54:48.563497+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge ARNOLD and MARTIN, JOHN C., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "LINDA R. SHARP, Plaintiff v. DAVID C. MILLER, ROBERT F. WARWICK, STEPHEN LOCKE, LOWRIMORE, WARWICK & CO. and McGLADREY & PULLEN, Defendants"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "EAGLES, Judge.\nPlaintiff assigns error to the trial court\u2019s grant of defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss pursuant to North Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Our standard of review is \u201cwhether, as a matter of law, the allegations of the complaint, treated as true, are sufficient to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under some legal theory_\u201d Harris v. NCNB, 85 N.C. App. 669, 670, 355 S.E.2d 838, 840 (1987). \u201cIn ruling upon such a motion, the complaint is to be liberally construed, and the court should not dismiss the complaint \u2018unless it appears beyond doubt that [the] plaintiff could prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.\u2019 \u201d Sinning v. Clark, 119 N.C. App. 515, 517, 459 S.E.2d 71, 73 (quoting Dixon v. Stuart, 85 N.C. App. 338, 340, 354 S.E.2d 757, 758 (1987)), disc. review denied, 342 N.C. 194, 463 S.E.2d 242 (1995).\nAfter careful review of plaintiff\u2019s complaint, we conclude that plaintiff\u2019s allegations fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Defendants conducted their appraisals and other evaluations in preparation for providing expert witness testimony in the \u201cdue course of a judicial proceeding.\u201d Williams v. Congdon, 43 N.C. App. 53, 55, 257 S.E.2d 677, 678 (1979). The appraisals and reports made by defendants here are absolutely privileged and cannot be made the basis of any cause of action alleged by plaintiff. Id.; Bailey v. McGill, 247 N.C. 286, 293-94, 100 S.E.2d 860, 866-67 (1957); Godette v. Gaskill, 151 N.C. 51, 52, 65 S.E. 612, 612-13 (1909). Accordingly, we conclude that plaintiffs complaint was properly dismissed.\nPlaintiff also assigns error to the trial court\u2019s imposition of Rule 11 sanctions against plaintiff. \u201cAccording to Rule 11, the signer certifies that three distinct things are true: the pleading is (1) well grounded in fact; (2) warranted by existing law, \u2018or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law\u2019 (legal sufficiency); and (3) not interposed for any improper purpose.\u201d Bryson v. Sullivan, 330 N.C. 644, 655, 412 S.E.2d 327, 332 (1992). \u201cA breach of the certification as to any one of these three prongs . . .\u201d requires the imposition of sanctions. Id. \u201cThe trial court\u2019s decision to impose or not to impose mandatory sanctions under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 11(a) is reviewable de novo as a legal issue.\u201d Tamer v. Duke University, 325 N.C. 152, 165, 381 S.E.2d 706, 714 (1989).\nPlaintiff argues that the trial court erred in determining that plaintiff\u2019s complaint was not well grounded in fact and was not legally plausible on its face. We are not persuaded. Plaintiff\u2019s complaint states that \u201c[defendants\u2019 actions as expert witness [sic] in connection with the equitable distribution case of Starkey and Linda R. Sharp are the subject of this action.\u201d The remainder of plaintiff\u2019s complaint primarily alleges numerous irregularities in the expert testimony and in defendants\u2019 report that was the basis of the expert testimony and that was prepared solely for the purpose of providing expert testimony.\nAs we have recognized, defendants are absolutely immune from suit for their actions in preparing the report to guide expert testimony as well as in providing expert testimony in the course of a judicial proceeding. Williams, 43 N.C. App. at 55, 257 S.E.2d at 678. This immunity from civil suit extends so far as to protect one who allegedly commits perjury. Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 342-43, 75 L. Ed. 2d 96, 113-14 (1983); see Bailey, 247 N.C. at 293-94, 100 S.E.2d at 866-67. Plaintiff\u2019s brief in opposition to defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss ignores this well-established precedent regarding witness immunity and fails to argue for a reversal or modification of this existing and well-established law. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court properly imposed Rule 11 sanctions against plaintiff.\nPlaintiff next argues that the trial court erred in ordering plaintiff to pay defendants\u2019 costs of defending this action including reasonable attorney\u2019s fees as a sanction. We disagree. In reviewing the propriety of the sanction imposed, the standard is one of abuse of discretion. Turner, 325 N.C. at 165, 381 S.E.2d at 714. On this record, we conclude that the sanction imposed was within the trial court\u2019s discretion. We need not address plaintiffs remaining assignments of error.\nAffirmed.\nChief Judge ARNOLD and MARTIN, JOHN C., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "EAGLES, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Linda R. Sharp, plaintiff-appellant, pro se.",
      "Homthal, Riley, Ellis & Maland, L.L.R, by L.P. Homthal, Jr., and Phillip K. Woods, for defendant-appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "LINDA R. SHARP, Plaintiff v. DAVID C. MILLER, ROBERT F. WARWICK, STEPHEN LOCKE, LOWRIMORE, WARWICK & CO. and McGLADREY & PULLEN, Defendants\nNo. COA95-167\n(Filed 20 February 1996)\n1. Reference and Referees \u00a7 40 (NCI4th)\u2014 expert witnesses appointed by referee \u2014 preparation of reports \u2014 reports absolutely privileged\nWhere defendants were appointed by a referee to conduct appraisals and other evaluations and to testify as expert witnesses as to the values determined in an equitable distribution action, defendants\u2019 reports were absolutely privileged and could not be made the basis of any cause of action alleged by plaintiff; therefore, plaintiffs complaint for negligence, detrimental reliance stemming from false representations or fraud, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty was properly dismissed.\nAm Jur 2d, References \u00a7 28.\n2. Pleadings \u00a7 63 (NCI4th)\u2014 imposition of sanctions \u2014 no error\nIn plaintiffs action against defendants who were appointed by a referee to appraise certain property and testify in an equitable distribution action as to the values determined, the trial court did not err in determining that plaintiffs complaint was not well grounded in fact and was not legally plausible on its face, and the court properly imposed Rule 11 sanctions against plaintiff.\nAm Jur 2d, Pleading \u00a7 26.\nAppeal by plaintiff from order entered 4 October 1994 by Judge J. Richard Parker in Dare County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 13 November 1995.\nPlaintiff, Linda R. Sharp, was formerly married to Starkey Sharp, an attorney in Dare County, North Carolina. This action arises incident to defendants\u2019 involvement as expert witnesses and litigation support in the equitable distribution case between Linda Sharp and Starkey Sharp. Sharp v. Sharp, 116 N.C. App. 513, 449 S.E.2d 39, disc, review denied, 338 N.C. 669, 458 S.E.2d 181 (1994). Defendants were appointed by a referee on 17 December 1990, with the parties\u2019 consent, to appraise certain property and testify as expert witnesses as to the values determined.\nPlaintiffs complaint filed 21 July 1994 alleged that defendants improperly performed their duties as appraisers and expert witnesses. Specifically, plaintiff alleged negligence, detrimental reliance stemming from false representations or fraud, breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. In response, defendants\u2019 filed a motion to dismiss and for sanctions and attorney\u2019s fees. After hearing on 3 October 1994, Judge J. Richard Parker rendered his decision in open court to grant defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss and to impose sanctions.\nPlaintiff appeals.\nLinda R. Sharp, plaintiff-appellant, pro se.\nHomthal, Riley, Ellis & Maland, L.L.R, by L.P. Homthal, Jr., and Phillip K. Woods, for defendant-appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0616-01",
  "first_page_order": 650,
  "last_page_order": 653
}