{
  "id": 11916338,
  "name": "HAROLD DEE HEMMINGS, Plaintiff v. ERNEST G. GREEN, Defendant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hemmings v. Green",
  "decision_date": "1996-04-02",
  "docket_number": "No. COA94-1247",
  "first_page": "191",
  "last_page": "193",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "122 N.C. App. 191"
    }
  ],
  "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": "315 S.E.2d 703",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "310 N.C. 744",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2400561,
        2399698,
        2394071,
        2398716,
        2396287
      ],
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/310/0744-03",
        "/nc/310/0744-04",
        "/nc/310/0744-01",
        "/nc/310/0744-02",
        "/nc/310/0744-05"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "310 S.E.2d 25",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "29"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "65 N.C. App. 269",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8523394
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "275"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/65/0269-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "351 S.E.2d 786",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "792",
          "parenthetical": "quoting In re Norris, 65 N.C. App. 269, 275, 310 S.E.2d 25, 29 (1983), disc. review denied, 310 N.C. 744, 315 S.E.2d 703 (1984)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "84 N.C. App. 27",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        12167365
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "37",
          "parenthetical": "quoting In re Norris, 65 N.C. App. 269, 275, 310 S.E.2d 25, 29 (1983), disc. review denied, 310 N.C. 744, 315 S.E.2d 703 (1984)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/84/0027-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "441 S.E.2d 116",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "335 N.C. 556",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2526439,
        2527798,
        2526937,
        2529402,
        2527003
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/335/0556-05",
        "/nc/335/0556-01",
        "/nc/335/0556-02",
        "/nc/335/0556-04",
        "/nc/335/0556-03"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "433 S.E.2d 478",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "480-81"
        },
        {
          "page": "481"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "111 N.C. App. 871",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8524503
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/111/0871-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1-52",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(5)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 324,
    "char_count": 5168,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.762,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7482210352804353
    },
    "sha256": "e99214c5f3b98fbb9dc6341076284fcfbe4d09cd4d632ed9c2720990f8e72e7e",
    "simhash": "1:ba63722d7448ecda",
    "word_count": 867
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:39:52.508825+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges WALKER and McGEE concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "HAROLD DEE HEMMINGS, Plaintiff v. ERNEST G. GREEN, Defendant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "COZORT, Judge.\nThe issue in this case is whether plaintiff\u2019s service of a \u201cDelayed Service of Complaint\u201d form constitutes valid service on defendant, since said form does not notify defendant of an obligation to appear at a certain place to answer the complaint. We hold that the form is not a substitute for a summons and is not a valid method of service. The trial court dismissed plaintiffs case for lack of service, and we affirm.\nOn 18 March 1994, plaintiff Harold Dee Hemmings commenced this action, alleging alienation of affections and criminal conversation by defendant Ernest G. Green. Plaintiff initiated said action by filing an application and obtaining an order extending his time to file a complaint. Pursuant to this application, the clerk of court issued a summons on form AOC-CV-102, entitled \u201cCivil Summons To Be Served With Order Extending Time To File Complaint\u201d on 18 March 1994. Both the form and the order extending the time to file complaint were returned unserved as to defendant on 21 March 1994.\nNext, on 7 April 1994, plaintiff filed his complaint, and the clerk issued a \u201cDelayed Service of Complaint,\u201d form AOC-CV-103. The defendant was served with the Delayed Service of Complaint (AOC-CV-103) on 12 April 1994. On 28 April 1994, the clerk of court granted defendant\u2019s application for extension of time to answer or otherwise plead, extending defendant\u2019s reply deadline to 11 June 1994. Defendant then moved to dismiss plaintiff\u2019s complaint on 13 June 1994, said motion grounded upon the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, alleging: lack of jurisdiction over the person, insufficiency of process, and insufficiency of service of process. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rules 12(b)(2), (4), (5) (1990).\nThe trial court, after considering the documents of record and arguments of counsel, found that the plaintiff failed to \u201cobtain an endorsement to the original summons or alias or pluries summons within the ninety (90) days allowed by Rule 4(d) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.\u201d Further, the trial court found that defendant had never been served with a summons by plaintiff. As a result, the trial court concluded as a matter of law that: (1) the three-year statute of limitations applicable to plaintiff\u2019s action expired on 20 March 1994, N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1-52(5) (1983); and (2) that dismissal based on defendant\u2019s Rule 12(b) motion was warranted. Based on the foregoing, the trial court dismissed plaintiff\u2019s action with prejudice on 19 August 1994. The appropriateness of the trial court\u2019s dismissal for lack of proper service is the sole issue on appeal. We affirm.\nWe find our analysis in Latham v. Cherry, 111 N.C. App. 871, 433 S.E.2d 478, cert. denied, 335 N.C. 556, 441 S.E.2d 116 (1994), persuasive. In Latham, this Court held that a Delayed Service of Complaint form, served alongside the complaint itself, is not a legally adequate substitute for a summons. Id. at 874, 433 S.E.2d at 480-81. Although the information conveyed in a Delayed Service of Complaint is similar to that of a summons proper, it falls short because it only tells the defendant to answer, not to appear. Id. at 874, 433 S.E.2d at 481. By statute, a summons must \u201cnotify each defendant to appear and answer within 30 days.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 4(b) (1990) (emphasis added).\nThe record below shows plaintiff failed to request defendant\u2019s appearance in its Delayed Service of Complaint. Accordingly, the trial court found that no summons had ever been served on the defendant and allowed defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss. In reviewing the decision of a trial court sitting without a jury, this Court\u2019s role is to determine \u201c \u2018whether there was competent evidence to support its findings of fact and whether its conclusions of law were proper in light of such facts.\u2019 \u201d Chemical Realty Corp. v. Home Fed\u2019l Savings & Loan, 84 N.C. App. 27, 37, 351 S.E.2d 786, 792 (1987) (quoting In re Norris, 65 N.C. App. 269, 275, 310 S.E.2d 25, 29 (1983), disc. review denied, 310 N.C. 744, 315 S.E.2d 703 (1984)). We find ample evidence in the record to support the findings. We further find Latham controlling and dis-positive on the trial court\u2019s conclusions of law. The dismissal of plaintiff\u2019s complaint is\nAffirmed.\nJudges WALKER and McGEE concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "COZORT, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gordon & Nesbit, P.L.L.C., by L. G. Gordon, Jr., and Thomas L. Nesbit, for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Bowden & Rabil, RA., by S. Mark Rabil, for defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "HAROLD DEE HEMMINGS, Plaintiff v. ERNEST G. GREEN, Defendant\nNo. COA94-1247\n(Filed 2 April 1996)\nProcess and Service \u00a7 37 (NCI4th)\u2014 service of \u201cDelayed Service of Complaint\u201d form \u2014 no valid service\nPlaintiffs service of a \u201cDelayed Service of Complaint\u201d form did not constitute valid service on defendant, since that form did not notify defendant of an obligation to appear at a certain place to answer the complaint, and it was thus not a substitute for a summons and was not a valid method of service. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 4(b).\nAm Jur 2d, Process \u00a7 148.\nAppeal by plaintiff from order of dismissal entered 19 August 1994 by Judge William H. Freeman in Forsyth County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 24 August 1995.\nGordon & Nesbit, P.L.L.C., by L. G. Gordon, Jr., and Thomas L. Nesbit, for plaintiff appellant.\nBowden & Rabil, RA., by S. Mark Rabil, for defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0191-01",
  "first_page_order": 227,
  "last_page_order": 229
}