{
  "id": 11890425,
  "name": "CHARLES I. TAYLOR, Plaintiff v. CENTURA BANK, Defendant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Taylor v. Centura Bank",
  "decision_date": "1996-12-03",
  "docket_number": "No. COA95-1262",
  "first_page": "661",
  "last_page": "663",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "124 N.C. App. 661"
    }
  ],
  "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": "181 S.E.2d 783",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "784"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "11 N.C. App. 580",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8556169
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "582-83"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/11/0580-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 298,
    "char_count": 4522,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.72,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.925142974760291e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3700681004954343
    },
    "sha256": "3ec50f2858ded7cf2d237719991442fabb4e4a498da7c2e5bb7b627d0b617116",
    "simhash": "1:0e261ce41a892631",
    "word_count": 731
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:03:33.335576+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Johnson, Lewis, and Wynn"
    ],
    "parties": [
      "CHARLES I. TAYLOR, Plaintiff v. CENTURA BANK, Defendant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM\nOn 18 September 1989, Judge George M. Britt issued a temporary restraining order (\u201cTRO\u201d) prohibiting Peoples Bank and Trust Company (now defendant Centura Bank) from disbursing any funds to plaintiff Charles I. Taylor from his checking account, in connection with a divorce action (89 CVD 1296) brought by plaintiffs wife (now ex-wife) in Nash County District Court. Defendant was served with the order on or about 18 September 1989 and subsequently froze all funds in plaintiff\u2019s account.\nThe TRO provided, in pertinent part:\nPeoples Bank and any other lending institutions in which the [plaintiff] has funds in the State of North Carolina are restrained from releasing to the [plaintiff] and/or his agents any funds from any accounts he may have with said institutions, until a hearing can be had in this matter.\nIt is further ORDERED that the [plaintiff] shall appear before the Judge of the District Court of Nash County, Nash County Courthouse, Nashville, North Carolina on 9-26-89, at 9:30 a.m. to show cause, if any, why this Temporary Restraining Order should not be continued as a Preliminary Injunction.\nThe hearing set in the TRO for 26 September 1989 was never held and no preliminary iryunction was ever issued against plaintiffs bank account.\nOn 28 September 1992, plaintiff filed this action against defendant asserting claims for wrongful dishonor, negligence, breach of contract and conversion. Defendant answered and moved for summary judgment. On 5 August 1994, Judge Quentin T. Sumner granted defendant\u2019s motion only as to the claim for wrongful dishonor. The remaining claims came on for trial on 10 July 1995 in Nash County Superior Court, Judge Dexter Brooks presiding. Defendant again moved for summary judgment, and plaintiff stipulated that the issue of the validity of the temporary restraining order was properly before the court for a summary judgment determination. On 12 July 1995, Judge Brooks entered an order granting summary judgment for defendant on the remaining claims. Plaintiff appeals from this order.\nPlaintiffs sole argument on appeal is that the trial court\u2019s 12 July 1995 summary judgment order was error because that ruling was based on the erroneous conclusion that the TRO remained in effect until the case in which it was issued was dismissed.\nAll TROs must be obtained pursuant to N.C.R. Civ. P. 65. See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 65 (1990). Like most, this one was obtained without notice to any party or Centura Bank. In the TRO, the date and time were set for a hearing to determine the propriety of a preliminary injunction to last for a longer period. However, no hearing was ever held and no order ever issued either extending the TRO or creating a permanent injunction.\nRule 65(b) clearly limits every TRO to a maximum of 10 days. Since the order expired, by operation of law, after ten days, see Lambe v. Smith, 11 N.C. App. 580, 582-83, 181 S.E.2d 783, 784 (1971), defendant had no legal authority to continue to freeze plaintiffs funds after ten days had passed.\nThus, the trial court\u2019s 12 July 1995 order granting summary judgment for defendant was error.\nReversed and remanded.\nPanel consisting of:\nJudges Johnson, Lewis, and Wynn\nJudge Johnson participated in this opinion prior to his retirement on 1 December 1996.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Brett A. Hubbard for plaintiff-appellant.",
      "Poyner & Spruill, L.L.P., by Randall R. Adams, for defendant-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CHARLES I. TAYLOR, Plaintiff v. CENTURA BANK, Defendant\nNo. COA95-1262\n(Filed 3 December 1996)\nBanks and Other Financial Institutions \u00a7 41 (NCI4th); Injunctions \u00a7 36 (NCI4th)\u2014 checking account \u2014 temporary restraining order \u2014 expiration\u2014continued freeze on funds \u2014 liability of bank\nA temporary restraining order prohibiting defendant bank from disbursing any funds to plaintiff from his checking account expired, by operation of law under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 65(d), after ten days, and defendant bank thus had no authority to continue to freeze plaintiff\u2019s funds after ten days had passed, where no hearing was ever held to determine the propriety of a preliminary injunction and no order was ever issued extending the temporary restraining order or creating a permanent injunction. Therefore, the trial court erred by granting summary judgment for defendant bank on plaintiff\u2019s claims for negligence, breach of contract, and conversion.\nAm Jur 2d, Banks \u00a7 493.\nAppeal by plaintiff from order entered 12 July 1995 by Judge Dexter Brooks in Nash County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 26 August 1996.\nBrett A. Hubbard for plaintiff-appellant.\nPoyner & Spruill, L.L.P., by Randall R. Adams, for defendant-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0661-01",
  "first_page_order": 699,
  "last_page_order": 701
}