{
  "id": 11918341,
  "name": "PAVING EQUIPMENT OF THE CAROLINAS, INC. d/b/a MECKLENBURG PAVING, INC. v. WILLIAM H. WATERS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Paving Equipment of Carolinas, Inc. v. Waters",
  "decision_date": "1996-05-21",
  "docket_number": "No. COA95-860",
  "first_page": "502",
  "last_page": "503",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "122 N.C. App. 502"
    }
  ],
  "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": "10 ALR5th 448",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 5th",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "345 S.E.2d 398",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "316 N.C. 731",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4695400,
        4696174,
        4696632,
        4699005,
        4702879
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/316/0731-02",
        "/nc/316/0731-05",
        "/nc/316/0731-04",
        "/nc/316/0731-03",
        "/nc/316/0731-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "338 S.E.2d 135",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "137"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 N.C. App. 664",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8523580
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "667"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/78/0664-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "388 S.E.2d 134",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "136"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "326 N.C. 205",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        5307411
      ],
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "209"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/326/0205-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 266,
    "char_count": 3940,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.743,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.8591662004228935e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3660682534001017
    },
    "sha256": "ea11378f21d250cb486284bdb6c01fef911e6fd4638eb25228e202d729a12ee9",
    "simhash": "1:8b17596ab0b8e95e",
    "word_count": 661
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:39:52.508825+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges JOHN and MARTIN, Mark D., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "PAVING EQUIPMENT OF THE CAROLINAS, INC. d/b/a MECKLENBURG PAVING, INC. v. WILLIAM H. WATERS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "GREENE, Judge.\nWilliam H. Waters (defendant) appeals from a judgment entered after a jury verdict in favor of Paving Equipment of the Carolinas, Inc. d/b/a Mecklenburg Paving (plaintiff).\nPursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 44A-12, plaintiff filed a claim of lien on defendant\u2019s property in the amount of $30,500, representing the amount plaintiff claimed it was owed for paving the defendant\u2019s parking lot. The plaintiff subsequently filed a complaint seeking a judgment in the amount of the $30,500 and enforcement of the lien. After a trial, the jury found for the plaintiff in the amount of $29,706.30. In addition to the jury award, the trial court awarded plaintiff attorney\u2019s fees of $5,700 and granted a lien on the defendant\u2019s property \u201cpursuant to the provision of G.S. 44A\u201d in an amount of the jury verdict and the attorney\u2019s fees. \u2022\nThe issue is whether an award of attorney\u2019s fees can be enforced as part of a Chapter 44A lien on defendant\u2019s property.\nDefendant argues that N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 44A-13(b) does not allow attorney\u2019s fees to be \u201cenforced as part of the lien granted pursuant to North Carolina General Statute \u00a7 44A-7, et. seq.\u201d Plaintiff argues that \u201cas long as the principal amount of the judgment... does not exceed that provided in the claim of lien, the additional sums of costs and [attorney\u2019s fees] . . . are enforceable as a part of the lien and judgment.\u201d We agree with the defendant.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 44A-13(b) states that a \u201c|j]udgment enforcing a lien . . . may be entered for the principal amount shown to be due, not exceeding the principal amount stated in the claim of lien enforced thereby.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 44A-13(b) (1995) (emphasis added). The \u201cprincipal amount,\u201d although not defined by the statute, is an unambiguous term and must be given its plain meaning. See Burgess v. Your House of Raleigh, 326 N.C. 205, 209, 388 S.E.2d 134, 136 (1990). The plain meaning of the term \u201cprincipal amount\u201d is that amount of debt owed exclusive of interest and attorney\u2019s fees. See Black\u2019s Law Dictionary 1192 (6th ed. 1990). If, however, there is an agreement between the parties with regard to interest, that interest due pursuant to the agreement will be included as part of the principal. Dail Plumbing, Inc. v. Roger Baker & Assoc., 78 N.C. App. 664, 667, 338 S.E.2d 135, 137 (in absence of agreement, trial court correctly refused to include prejudgment interest as part of lien), disc. rev. denied, 316 N.C. 731, 345 S.E.2d 398 (1986). Thus a judgment enforcing a lien under this statute cannot exceed the amount determined to be due from the defendant to the plaintiff, exclusive of attorney\u2019s fees.\nIn this case, the amount determined to be due the plaintiff was $29,706.30 and the trial court had no authority to direct enforcement of a lien in a greater amount. Therefore, that portion of the judgment ordering that the attorney\u2019s fees also be enforced as a part of the lien is reversed. We have carefully reviewed the other assignments of error asserted by the defendant and overrule them.\nAffirmed in part, reversed in part.\nJudges JOHN and MARTIN, Mark D., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "GREENE, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William G. Robinson, and Colombo and Robinson, by William C. Robinson, for plaintiff-appellee.",
      "Goodman, Carr, Nixon, Laughrun & Levine, P.A., by Miles S. Levine, for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "PAVING EQUIPMENT OF THE CAROLINAS, INC. d/b/a MECKLENBURG PAVING, INC. v. WILLIAM H. WATERS\nNo. COA95-860\n(Filed 21 May 1996)\nLiens \u00a7 21 (NCI4th)\u2014 Chapter 44A lien \u2014 no attorney\u2019s fees as part of lien\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 44A-13(b) does not allow attorney\u2019s fees to be enforced as part of a Chapter 44A lien on defendant\u2019s property.\nAm Jur 2d, Liens \u00a7 75; Mechanics\u2019 Liens \u00a7\u00a7 432, 433.\nExcessiveness or adequacy of attorneys\u2019 fees in matters involving real estate \u2014 modern cases. 10 ALR5th 448.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment entered 21 April 1995 in Mecklenburg County Superior Court by Judge Robert M. Burroughs. Heard in the Court of Appeals 29 March 1996.\nWilliam G. Robinson, and Colombo and Robinson, by William C. Robinson, for plaintiff-appellee.\nGoodman, Carr, Nixon, Laughrun & Levine, P.A., by Miles S. Levine, for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0502-01",
  "first_page_order": 538,
  "last_page_order": 539
}