{
  "id": 11871296,
  "name": "TOWN OF SEVEN DEVILS v. VILLAGE OF SUGAR MOUNTAIN",
  "name_abbreviation": "Town of Seven Devils v. Village of Sugar Mountain",
  "decision_date": "1997-03-18",
  "docket_number": "No. COA96-539",
  "first_page": "692",
  "last_page": "694",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "125 N.C. App. 692"
    }
  ],
  "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": "17 ALR5th 195",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 5th",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "49 ALR3d 1126",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 3d",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "380 S.E.2d 536",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1989,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "537"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "94 N.C. App. 588",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8527634
      ],
      "year": 1989,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "590"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/94/0588-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "227 S.E.2d 576",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "581-82"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "290 N.C. 608",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8562814
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "617"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/290/0608-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 313,
    "char_count": 5814,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.748,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.2907564689206516e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7862101226751058
    },
    "sha256": "33b135396db35531d3b9f6d8ef75a67f3c1d077dc560c7c4f4b0814bfc59a3fb",
    "simhash": "1:bc082d073aae5932",
    "word_count": 896
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:18:02.941264+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges EAGLES and MARTIN, John C., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "TOWN OF SEVEN DEVILS v. VILLAGE OF SUGAR MOUNTAIN"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "GREENE, Judge.\nThe Town of Seven Devils (plaintiff) appeals from the dismissal pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A, Rule 12(b)(6) of its complaint seeking a declaration that certain annexations by the Village of Sugar Mountain (defendant) were null and void.\nThe allegations of the complaint reveal that on 30 March 1995 the North Carolina Wilderness Limited Partnership (N.C.W.L.), the owner of a tract of land in Avery County, North Carolina referred to as Linville Ridge, submitted a petition for voluntary annex\u00e1tion to the defendant, a municipal corporation chartered under the laws of North Carolina. On 25 April 1995 the defendant adopted an ordinance annexing the N.C.W.L. property. On 25 April 1995 Wilmor Corporation (Wilmor), Douglas V. and Lillian Coffey (Coffey), and Carroll and Gayle Garland (Garland) petitioned the defendant for annexation. On 9 May 1995 the defendant adopted an ordinance annexing the Wilmor, Coffey and Garland properties. The N.C.W.L. annexation consists of a strip of land ten feet wide extending from the 25 April 1995 corporate limits of the defendant to the Wilmor, Coffey and Garland properties, which were not contiguous (prior to the N.C.W.L. annexation) to the defendant\u2019s corporate limits.\nPlaintiff, a municipal corporation chartered under the laws of North Carolina, is located across a roadway from the Wilmor, Coffey and Garland properties. The boundaries of these properties, prior to 25 April 1995, were \u201ccloser to the corporate limits\u201d of plaintiff than they were to the corporate limits of the defendant.\nThe dispositive issue is whether plaintiff has standing to challenge the validity of the defendant\u2019s annexation of the properties.\nThe North Carolina Declaratory Judgment Act (Act) provides that \u201c[a]ny person [including a municipal corporation] interested . . . , whose rights, status or other legal relations are affected by a . . . municipal ordinance,\u201d may \u201cobtain a declaration of rights.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1-254 (1996); N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1-265 (1996).\nThe plaintiff argues that it is an \u201cinterested\u201d party and thus has the right to contest the defendant\u2019s annexation of the N.C.W.L., Wilmor, Coffey and Garland properties and the trial court therefore erred in granting the defendant\u2019s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. We disagree.\nExcept where an annexation ordinance is void and except where there is \u201cspecific statutory authority [authorizing a party to] attack, collaterally or directly, the validity of proceedings extending the corporate limits of a municipality,\u201d the State is the only party authorized to prosecute such an action. Taylor v. City of Raleigh, 290 N.C. 608, 617, 227 S.E.2d 576, 581-82 (1976). Our legislature has provided that \u201cany person owning property in the annexed territory\u201d may challenge an annexation in court. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 160A-38(a) (1994); N.C.G.S. \u00a7 160A-50(a); Joyner v. Town of Weaverville, 94 N.C. App. 588, 590, 380 S.E.2d 536, 537 (1989).\nIn this case there is no contention that the annexation is void. The plaintiff does not argue that the legislature has promulgated any statute that expressly authorizes one municipality to challenge the annexation ordinance of another municipality and we have found no such statute. Plaintiff does argue, however, that section 160A~58.1(b) implicitly vests it with standing to contest the annexation at issue because its corporate limits are closer to the Wilmor, Coffey and Garland properties than the corporate limits of the defendant. This statute does preclude the annexation of a noncontiguous area if any \u201cpoint on the proposed satellite corporate limits [is] closer to the primary corporate limits of another city than to the primary corporate limits of the annexing city.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 160A-58.1(b)(2) (1994). Assuming this statute does grant a municipality standing to contest the annexation of noncontiguous property that is closer to its corporate limits than it is to the corporate limits of the annexing municipality, the statute is of no help to the plaintiff in this case. At the time the defendant annexed the Wilmor, Coffey and Garland properties, those properties were contiguous areas, as they had a common boundary with the N.C.W.L. properties which were within the defendant\u2019s corporate limits. Thus section 160A-58.1(b) has no applicability to this proceeding.\nBecause there is no statutory authority granting plaintiff standing to challenge the questioned annexations, the trial court correctly dismissed the complaint.\nAffirmed.\nJudges EAGLES and MARTIN, John C., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "GREENE, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "David R. Paletta for plaintiff-appellant.",
      "Joseph W. Seegers for defendant-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "TOWN OF SEVEN DEVILS v. VILLAGE OF SUGAR MOUNTAIN\nNo. COA96-539\n(Filed 18 March 1997)\nMunicipal Corporations \u00a7 117 (NCI4th)\u2014 standing to challenge annexation \u2014 another municipality\nPlaintiff municipality did not have standing to challenge the validity of an annexation ordinance of defendant municipality. Assuming that N.C.G.S. \u00a7 160A-58.1(b)(2) grants a municipality standing to contest the annexation of noncontiguous property that is closer to its corporate limits than it is to the corporate limits of the annexing municipality, this statute was inapplicable where the annexed properties had a common boundary with a previously annexed ten-foot-wide strip of land and thus were contiguous to the annexing municipality.\nAm Jur 2d, Municipal Corporations, Counties, and Other Political Subdivisions \u00a7 70.\nStanding of municipal corporation or other governmental body to attack zoning of land lying outside its borders. 49 ALR3d 1126.\nRight of one governmental subdivision to challenge annexation proceedings by another such subdivision. 17 ALR5th 195.\nAppeal by plaintiff from order entered 5 March 1996 in Avery County Superior Court by Judge Loto G. Caviness. Heard in the Court of Appeals 28 January 1997.\nDavid R. Paletta for plaintiff-appellant.\nJoseph W. Seegers for defendant-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0692-01",
  "first_page_order": 730,
  "last_page_order": 732
}