{ "id": 11917387, "name": "CHARLES YOUNG and wife, ANN YOUNG; TERRY BEAVER and wife, SANDRA BEAVER; JOHN KLUTTZ and wife, DONNA KLUTTZ; MICHAEL CALLAHAN and wife, BRENDA CALLAHAN; HENRY KIVETT and wife, BARBARA KIVETT; JAMES SHOLLY and wife, KIM SHOLLY; ALLEN JOHNSON, II and wife, TERRI JOHNSON; SAMUEL BASS and wife, DENISE BASS; MARY CLINE; LESTER SHELTON; MARK DULANEY and PAMELA DULANEY; JACK MORGAN, JR. and wife, BEVERLY MORGAN; LARRY PAUL and wife, MYRA PAUL; HAROLD WHITLEY and wife, PATSY WHITLEY; OYSTEIN DAHL and wife, DEBORAH DAHL; CHUCK REX HELMS; MITCH WELLS and wife, CINDY WELLS; AND CHARLES B. LEWIS, SR., Plaintiffs v. JAMES F. LOMAX and RODNEY HELMS, and DAWN W. O'DELL, in her capacity as Trustee and NATIONSBANC MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Defendants", "name_abbreviation": "Young v. Lomax", "decision_date": "1996-05-07", "docket_number": "No. COA95-325", "first_page": "385", "last_page": "388", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "122 N.C. App. 385" } ], "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": "32 ALR4th 651", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 4th", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "17 ALR4th 106", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 4th", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "217 S.E.2d 663", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "288 N.C. 239", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565536, 8565571, 8565606, 8565514, 8565498 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/288/0239-03", "/nc/288/0239-04", "/nc/288/0239-05", "/nc/288/0239-02", "/nc/288/0239-01" ] }, { "cite": "214 S.E.2d 621", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "621" }, { "page": "621" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "26 N.C. App. 87", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8549811 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "88" }, { "page": "88" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/26/0087-01" ] }, { "cite": "385 S.E.2d 535", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "536" }, { "page": "536" }, { "page": "536" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "96 N.C. App. 369", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8522377 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "370-71" }, { "page": "371-72" }, { "page": "371-72" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/96/0369-01" ] }, { "cite": "424 S.E.2d 660", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "663" }, { "page": "663" }, { "page": "663" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "108 N.C. App. 679", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8525358 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "683" }, { "page": "683-84" }, { "page": "684" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/108/0679-01" ] }, { "cite": "321 S.E.2d 899", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "312 N.C. 85", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4757024, 4751561, 4757552, 4757266, 4755539 ], "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/312/0085-02", "/nc/312/0085-05", "/nc/312/0085-03", "/nc/312/0085-04", "/nc/312/0085-01" ] }, { "cite": "316 S.E.2d 657", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "661" }, { "page": "661" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "69 N.C. App. 64", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8525747 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "71-72" }, { "page": "72" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/69/0064-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 505, "char_count": 8798, "ocr_confidence": 0.736, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.317852702137001e-08, "percentile": 0.4396217694545126 }, "sha256": "b711619d8ddfa0288950b64d947997bbf94f340cdc9bf22642c81e4e6f494d82", "simhash": "1:4909f92b7c1d3a64", "word_count": 1443 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:39:52.508825+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges LEWIS and McGEE concur." ], "parties": [ "CHARLES YOUNG and wife, ANN YOUNG; TERRY BEAVER and wife, SANDRA BEAVER; JOHN KLUTTZ and wife, DONNA KLUTTZ; MICHAEL CALLAHAN and wife, BRENDA CALLAHAN; HENRY KIVETT and wife, BARBARA KIVETT; JAMES SHOLLY and wife, KIM SHOLLY; ALLEN JOHNSON, II and wife, TERRI JOHNSON; SAMUEL BASS and wife, DENISE BASS; MARY CLINE; LESTER SHELTON; MARK DULANEY and PAMELA DULANEY; JACK MORGAN, JR. and wife, BEVERLY MORGAN; LARRY PAUL and wife, MYRA PAUL; HAROLD WHITLEY and wife, PATSY WHITLEY; OYSTEIN DAHL and wife, DEBORAH DAHL; CHUCK REX HELMS; MITCH WELLS and wife, CINDY WELLS; AND CHARLES B. LEWIS, SR., Plaintiffs v. JAMES F. LOMAX and RODNEY HELMS, and DAWN W. O\u2019DELL, in her capacity as Trustee and NATIONSBANC MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Defendants" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "EAGLES, Judge.\nWe first note that summary judgment is appropriate only \u201cif the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.\u201d G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56(c); Snipes v. Jackson, 69 N.C. App. 64, 71-72, 316 S.E.2d 657, 661, disc. review denied and appeal dismissed, 312 N.C. 85, 321 S.E.2d 899 (1984). The trial court must view \u201cthe evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, and the slightest doubt as to the facts entitles him to a trial.\u201d Snipes, 69 N.C. App. at 72, 316 S.E.2d at 661.\nHere, defendants argue that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs because a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether defendant Helms\u2019 home is a mobile home within the meaning of the subdivision\u2019s protective covenants. The pertinent portion of the subdivision\u2019s \u201cProtective Covenants\u201d provides:\nTemporary Structures: No structure of a temporary nature, trailer, mobile home, basement, tent, shack, garage, bam, or other out buildings shall be used on any lot at any time as a residence, either temporarily or permanently. All lots or any structures thereon shall be kept in a neat and orderly manner, free from all unlicensed automobiles and tracks and other debris.\nDefendants argue that the term \u201cmobile home\u201d in the covenant is subject to different interpretations and that the correct interpretation of this term should have been determined at a trial. We disagree. Case law clearly sets out the features that make a structure a mobile home.\nA \u201cmobile home\u201d is a structure that is designed to be moved, for transport. Angel v. Truitt, 108 N.C. App. 679, 683, 424 S.E.2d 660, 663 (1993). In Starr v. Thompson, 96 N.C. App. 369, 370-71, 385 S.E.2d 535, 536 (1989), we found that the structure in question was a \u201cmobile home\u201d because the structure was \u201cmade up of two sections . . .; each section ha[d] a permanent, built-in chassis equipped to accommodate four removable axles upon which motor vehicle like wheels [could] be affixed at each end;\u201d and the structure was delivered to its location on wheels attached to the axles. We held in Starr that the structure was a mobile home \u201ceven though the axles, wheels and tongues were removed after the structure was placed on the lot.\u201d Starr, 96 N.C. App. at 371-72, 385 S.E.2d at 536. See City of Asheboro v. Auman, 26 N.C. App. 87, 88, 214 S.E.2d 621, 621 (where we held that creating a lack of mobility of the structure after it is installed does not change the fact that the structure is still a mobile home), cert. denied, 288 N.C. 239, 217 S.E.2d 663 (1975). In Angel, 108 N.C. App. 679, 683-84, 424 S.E.2d 660, 663 (1993), we concluded that the structure in question was not a mobile home because the structure did not have a permanent chassis; there were no axles or wheels on the structure; and the structure could only be transported by lifting it with a crane and placing it on a dolly.\nHere, defendants admitted that the structure was delivered to the site in two sections; each section had its own permanent steel chassis consisting of two \u201cI\u201d beams affixed to the flooring system of the unit; each unit was attached to four axles with two wheels per axle; and a truck towed the structure to its present site with the structure riding on its own axles and wheels. We conclude that this evidence established as a matter of law that the structure is a mobile home.\nWe note that once the structure at issue here reached its destination, the wheels and axles were removed and the structure was placed on concrete blocks which were stacked to create piers. Defendants point to Angel where, in concluding that a structure was not a mobile home, we noted that once the structure was placed on its foundation, it could only be \u201cmoved as one unit in exactly the same manner that a house built on-site is moved.\u201d Angel, 108 N.C. App. at 684, 424 S.E.2d at 663. Here, defendants argue that the structure is permanent in nature because the axles and wheels have been removed and now it can only be removed in one unit like a house built on-site is removed. Defendants point out that plaintiffs presented a forecast of evidence arguing that the structure is not permanent and can be removed by just reversing the process used to install it. Defendants contend that this contradicting evidence creates a genuine issue of material fact that should have been resolved at trial. Defendants\u2019 reliance on Angel is misplaced. As we stated above, rendering a structure immobile after it has been installed does not change the fact that the'structure is still a mobile home. Starr, 96 N.C. App. at 371-72, 385 S.E.2d at 536; Auman, 26 N.C. App. at 88, 214 S.E.2d at 621. In Angel, we determined that the structure was not a mobile home because it was never designed for transport. Defendants\u2019 assignment of error fails.\nAffirmed.\nJudges LEWIS and McGEE concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "EAGLES, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Ferguson & Scarbrough, P.A., by James E. Scarbrough, for plaintiff-appellees.", "Wishart, Norris, Henninger & Pittman, P.A., by June K. Allison, for defendant-appellants Dawn W. O\u2019Dell, in her capacity as Trustee, and NationsBanc Mortgage Corporation, and Johnson & Hastings, by Randell F. Hastings, for defendant-appellants James F. Lomax and Rodney Helms." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "CHARLES YOUNG and wife, ANN YOUNG; TERRY BEAVER and wife, SANDRA BEAVER; JOHN KLUTTZ and wife, DONNA KLUTTZ; MICHAEL CALLAHAN and wife, BRENDA CALLAHAN; HENRY KIVETT and wife, BARBARA KIVETT; JAMES SHOLLY and wife, KIM SHOLLY; ALLEN JOHNSON, II and wife, TERRI JOHNSON; SAMUEL BASS and wife, DENISE BASS; MARY CLINE; LESTER SHELTON; MARK DULANEY and PAMELA DULANEY; JACK MORGAN, JR. and wife, BEVERLY MORGAN; LARRY PAUL and wife, MYRA PAUL; HAROLD WHITLEY and wife, PATSY WHITLEY; OYSTEIN DAHL and wife, DEBORAH DAHL; CHUCK REX HELMS; MITCH WELLS and wife, CINDY WELLS; AND CHARLES B. LEWIS, SR., Plaintiffs v. JAMES F. LOMAX and RODNEY HELMS, and DAWN W. O\u2019DELL, in her capacity as Trustee and NATIONSBANC MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Defendants\nNo. COA95-325\n(Filed 7 May 1996)\nDeeds \u00a7 74 (NCI4th)\u2014 structure as mobile home \u2014 violation of restrictive covenants \u2014 summary judgment proper\nThe trial court properly granted summary judgment for plaintiffs who sought a permanent mandatory injunction compelling removal of a structure from defendant\u2019s lot where there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the structure was a mobile home within the meaning of the subdivision\u2019s protective covenants, since the structure was delivered to the site in two sections; each had its own permanent steel chassis consisting of two \u201cI\u201d beams affixed to the flooring system of the unit; each unit was attached to four axles with two wheels per axle; a truck towed the structure to the site with the structure riding on its own axles and wheels; when the structure reached its destination, the wheels and axles were removed and the structure was placed on concrete blocks; but this did not change the fact that the structure was still a mobile home.\nAm Jur 2d, Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions \u00a7 195.\nValidity of zoning or building regulations restricting mobile homes or trailers to established mobile home or trailer parks.17 ALR4th 106.\nValidity and construction of restrictive covenant prohibiting or governing outside storage or parking of house-trailers, motor homes, campers, vans, and the like, in residential neighborhoods. 32 ALR4th 651.\nAppeal by defendants from order granting summary judgment entered 14 December 1994 by Judge Clarence E. Horton, Jr. in Cabarrus County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 26 March 1996.\nPlaintiffs are owners of residential lots in Rhinehardt Estates Subdivision (hereinafter subdivision) in Cabarrus County, North Carolina. In July 1993, Rodney Helms (hereinafter defendant Helms) purchased a \u201chome\u201d manufactured by Imperial Homes of Charlotte and placed the structure on lot 43 of the subdivision. At the time, defendant Helms was purchasing lots 43 and 44 of the subdivision from James F. Lomax (hereinafter defendant Lomax) under an installment contract. On 16 September 1993, plaintiffs filed a complaint in Cabarrus County District Court against defendant Helms and defendant Lomax seeking a permanent mandatory injunction against them compelling removal of the structure. Plaintiffs contended that the structure violated the subdivision restrictions which, inter alia, prohibited the installation of trailers and mobile homes in the subdivision. Defendants answered the complaint, denying that the structure violated any subdivision restrictions. On 14 December 1994 the trial court granted plaintiffs\u2019 motion for summary judgment.\nDefendants appeal.\nFerguson & Scarbrough, P.A., by James E. Scarbrough, for plaintiff-appellees.\nWishart, Norris, Henninger & Pittman, P.A., by June K. Allison, for defendant-appellants Dawn W. O\u2019Dell, in her capacity as Trustee, and NationsBanc Mortgage Corporation, and Johnson & Hastings, by Randell F. Hastings, for defendant-appellants James F. Lomax and Rodney Helms." }, "file_name": "0385-01", "first_page_order": 421, "last_page_order": 424 }