{ "id": 11079669, "name": "DAVIS LAKE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiff v. WILLIAM FELDMANN and AUDREY M. OSZUST, Defendants", "name_abbreviation": "Davis Lake Community Ass'n v. Feldmann", "decision_date": "2000-06-06", "docket_number": "No. COA99-640", "first_page": "322", "last_page": "324", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "138 N.C. App. 322" } ], "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": "417 S.E.2d 841", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "842" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "106 N.C. App. 691", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 5313235 ], "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "692" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/106/0691-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 284, "char_count": 3888, "ocr_confidence": 0.775, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.935167149506019e-08, "percentile": 0.3096802168775091 }, "sha256": "94d13c6942ad2a9eb2ace994425cd5a9b7115cd8c8a824c188ec18b595f2e7ac", "simhash": "1:af3f42037a2b487f", "word_count": 601 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:09:36.911228+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges JOHN and EDMUNDS concur." ], "parties": [ "DAVIS LAKE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiff v. WILLIAM FELDMANN and AUDREY M. OSZUST, Defendants" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "LEWIS, Judge.\nThe sole issue in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in assessing $400 in sanctions against defendants\u2019 counsel for violations of N.C.R. Civ. P. 11(a). We summarily conclude the trial court properly awarded sanctions and thus affirm its order.\nThis action commenced when plaintiff filed a complaint against defendants, seeking unpaid homeowners\u2019 assessments. Defendants eventually filed counterclaims against plaintiff and, although never officially made a party, plaintiffs counsel as well. In an order entered 16 October 1998, the trial court dismissed all of defendants\u2019 counterclaims (including those asserted against plaintiff\u2019s counsel) pursuant to N.C.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Notwithstanding this order, defendants thereafter tried again to assert the same claims against plaintiff\u2019s counsel by filing a Rule 13(h) motion to join them as a party. The trial court denied that motion and then imposed sanctions against defense counsel based upon the fact that the counterclaims had already been dismissed and were thus barred by res judicata.\nRule 11(a) allows sanctions against attorneys who file pleadings or motions that are, among other things, asserted for an improper purpose or not warranted by existing law. Both grounds apply here. Rule 13(h) permits the joinder of any non-party whose presence is \u201crequired for the granting of complete relief in the determination of a counterclaim.\u201d Through its Rule 13(h) motion, defense counsel attempted to join plaintiff\u2019s counsel as a party. Under the plain wording of the rule, however, a counterclaim must first exist, thereby making joinder necessary. Here there was no such counterclaim, as all counterclaims were dismissed in the court\u2019s 16 October 1998 order.\nMoreover, although couched in terms of Rule 13(h), defense counsel\u2019s motion was essentially an attempt to refile the same counterclaims against plaintiff\u2019s counsel that had just been dismissed. Because the trial court did not specify otherwise, its dismissal of those counterclaims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) operated as an adjudication on the merits and thus barred defense counsel from reasserting the same counterclaims later. Dawson v. Allstate Insurance Co., 106 N.C. App. 691, 692, 417 S.E.2d 841, 842 (1992). Accordingly, defense counsel\u2019s Rule 13(h) motion was completely frivolous and not warranted by existing law, or a valid effort to change it.\nThe record in this case and the two companion cases filed today involving defense counsel include myriad motions and filings, many of which are unnecessary and/or frivolous. Through these motions and filings, defense counsel has wasted much of our courts\u2019 time and resources, all for appeals involving relatively small sums of money. We therefore not only affirm the trial court\u2019s imposition of sanctions; we wholeheartedly applaud it.\nAffirmed.\nJudges JOHN and EDMUNDS concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "LEWIS, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Sellers, Hinshaw, Ayers, Dortch, Honeycutt & Lyons, P.A., by John F. Ayers, III and Timothy G. Sellers for plaintiff-appellee.", "Dean & Gibson, L.L.P., by Rodney Dean, for plaintiff-appellee\u2019s counsel.", "Hewson Lapinel Owens, PA, by H.L. Owens, for defendant-appellants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "DAVIS LAKE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiff v. WILLIAM FELDMANN and AUDREY M. OSZUST, Defendants\nNo. COA99-640\n(Filed 6 June 2000)\nPleadings\u2014 Rule 11 sanctions \u2014 frivolous motion\nThe trial court did not err in assessing $400 in sanctions under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 11(a) against defendants\u2019 counsel, based on defendants\u2019 filing of a frivolous N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 13(h) motion to join plaintiff\u2019s counsel as a party, because defense counsel was essentially attempting to refile the same counterclaims against plaintiff\u2019s counsel when those claims had already been dismissed.\nAppeal by defendants from order entered 14 January 1999 by Judge David S. Cayer in Mecklenburg County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 13 March 2000.\nSellers, Hinshaw, Ayers, Dortch, Honeycutt & Lyons, P.A., by John F. Ayers, III and Timothy G. Sellers for plaintiff-appellee.\nDean & Gibson, L.L.P., by Rodney Dean, for plaintiff-appellee\u2019s counsel.\nHewson Lapinel Owens, PA, by H.L. Owens, for defendant-appellants." }, "file_name": "0322-01", "first_page_order": 352, "last_page_order": 354 }