{ "id": 9080506, "name": "DANA E. SHOOK, Plaintiff v. LYNCH & HOWARD, P.A., THOMAS M. MILLER, MAYLON E. LITTLE, and HOMER G. DUNCAN, JR., Defendants", "name_abbreviation": "Shook v. Lynch & Howard, P.A.", "decision_date": "2002-05-07", "docket_number": "No. COA01-321", "first_page": "185", "last_page": "189", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "150 N.C. App. 185" } ], "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": "339 S.E.2d 90", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "95", "parenthetical": "noting that findings and conclusions in the trial court's order for summary judgment are surplusage and unnecessary to the appellate court's later determinations" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "79 N.C. App. 315", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8520555 ], "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "323", "parenthetical": "noting that findings and conclusions in the trial court's order for summary judgment are surplusage and unnecessary to the appellate court's later determinations" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/79/0315-01" ] }, { "cite": "557 S.E.2d 529", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "354 N.C. 566", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 138400 ], "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/354/0566-01" ] }, { "cite": "551 S.E.2d 443", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "445-47" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "144 N.C. App. 493", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11435361 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "495-97" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/144/0493-01" ] }, { "cite": "483 S.E.2d 161", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1997, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "345 N.C. 340", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 54080, 54180, 54223, 53970, 53909 ], "year": 1997, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/345/0340-02", "/nc/345/0340-03", "/nc/345/0340-05", "/nc/345/0340-04", "/nc/345/0340-01" ] }, { "cite": "477 S.E.2d 693", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "696" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "124 N.C. App. 521", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11889996 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "525" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/124/0521-01" ] }, { "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", "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "662" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "69 N.C. App. 64", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8525747 ], "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "73" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/69/0064-01" ] }, { "cite": "467 S.E.2d 715", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1996, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "342 N.C. 656", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 795971, 795908, 796133, 796109, 795919 ], "year": 1996, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/342/0656-04", "/nc/342/0656-01", "/nc/342/0656-03", "/nc/342/0656-05", "/nc/342/0656-02" ] }, { "cite": "463 S.E.2d 567", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "569" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "120 N.C. App. 857", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11918657 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "859" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/120/0857-01" ] }, { "cite": "559 S.E.2d 787", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "355 N.C. 275", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 220124 ], "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/355/0275-01" ] }, { "cite": "551 S.E.2d 867", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "873" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "144 N.C. App. 558", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11435665 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "566" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/144/0558-01" ] }, { "cite": "545 S.E.2d 210", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "353 N.C. 445", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 135880 ], "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/353/0445-01" ] }, { "cite": "538 S.E.2d 629", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "630", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "140 N.C. App. 737", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 12134800 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "738", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/140/0737-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 574, "char_count": 9942, "ocr_confidence": 0.742, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.643594115661138e-08, "percentile": 0.2916845731160388 }, "sha256": "95109a006e4ea9926cc09ce9d58ba03555148c35144cd7d0fb2bf8b2636d1bf3", "simhash": "1:82f34e704f0c6e90", "word_count": 1535 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:52:10.836930+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges THOMAS and JOHN concur." ], "parties": [ "DANA E. SHOOK, Plaintiff v. LYNCH & HOWARD, P.A., THOMAS M. MILLER, MAYLON E. LITTLE, and HOMER G. DUNCAN, JR., Defendants" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "HUDSON, Judge.\nPlaintiff appeals an order granting defendants\u2019 motion for summary judgment. Initially, plaintiff assigned as error multiple orders, including: (1) the denial of plaintiff\u2019s motion for findings of fact, (2) the granting of defendants\u2019 motions to amend, and (3) the granting of defendants\u2019 motions for summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiff\u2019s sole argument on appeal concerns the granting of defendants\u2019 motion for summary judgment; thus, pursuant to Rule 10 of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure (1999), all other assignments of error are deemed abandoned. We affirm.\nIn her complaint, Dana E. Shook (\u201cplaintiff\u2019) alleged that she hired Lynch & Howard and their employees (\u201cL & H\u201d) in May 1996 to prepare \u201cbusiness valuations\u201d on her husband\u2019s companies. At the time, plaintiff was in the process of obtaining a divorce from her husband, Michael G. Shook, and needed assistance valuing his financial holdings for equitable distribution proceedings. Defendants Thomas M. Miller, Maylon E. Little, and Homer G. Duncan, Jr. are accountants who worked at L & H and participated in preparing reports on the businesses. According to plaintiff, she rejected an equitable distribution settlement offer from her husband, because she relied on defendants\u2019 evaluations, which she contends were incorrect. Plaintiff and her husband settled \u201call matters in controversy\u201d and entered a consent judgment resolving all equitable distribution issues on 27 May 1998.\nAfter the entry of the Judgment of Equitable Distribution, plaintiff initiated this lawsuit against defendants. In her Amended Complaint, plaintiff alleged that:\n22. As a direct and proximate result of the defendants\u2019 supplying the plaintiff with erroneous information and advice, the plaintiff was caused to suffer substantial compensatory injury and damage, including but not limited to the following: substantial handicap and detriment in the plaintiffs efforts to negotiate a settlement of the equitable distribution property dispute between the plaintiff and Mr. Shook; headache, nervous stomach, bodily illness, embarrassment, humiliation; severe mental and emotional distress; and loss of the economic benefit of a more favorable settlement offer because the defendants\u2019 erroneous accounting information and advice misled her to consider Mr. Shook\u2019s initial settlement proposal to be unreasonable when [] she would have evaluated said settlement proposal differently had she received the accurate and competent accounting advice to which she was entitled and for which she paid.\nAs a direct and proximate result of the defendants\u2019 wanton, multiple and gross negligent acts and omissions (and the defendants\u2019 wanton failure to timely recognize and correct such), the plaintiff has suffered compensatory damages in an amount substantially in excess of TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10,000) ....\nDefendants each answered and asserted multiple affirmative defenses including judicial immunity or witness immunity, and res judicata or collateral estoppel. Defendants also filed motions to dismiss, motions for summary judgment, and motions for judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiff filed a \u201cMotion for Findings of Fact\u201d requesting \u201cthat the Court make findings of fact and conclusions of law in his rulings on the defendants [sic] motion for judgment on the pleadings, motions for summary judgment, and motion regarding the defense of collateral estoppel.\u201d The trial court denied plaintiff\u2019s motion, and granted defendants\u2019 motions concluding \u201cthat there is no genuine issue of material fact and that Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Defendants\u2019 motions for summary judgment should be and hereby are ALLOWED on the basis of Defendants\u2019 affirmative defenses of testimonial immunity and collateral estoppel.\u201d Plaintiff appeals the granting of defendants\u2019 motion for summary judgment.\n\u201cIt is well established that the standard of review of the grant of a motion for summary judgment requires a two-part analysis of whether, \u2018(1) the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact; and (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.\u2019 \u201d Von Viczay v. Thoms, 140 N.C. App. 737, 738, 538 S.E.2d 629, 630 (2000) (citations omitted), aff'd, 353 N.C. 445, 545 S.E.2d 210 (2001); see also N.C. R. Civ. Proc. 56 (1999). After conducting a review commensurate with the test described above, we conclude that summary judgment was appropriate.\nIn essence, plaintiff alleged that defendants were negligent. \u201cIn order to make out a claim for negligence, the party asserting negligence must show that defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff, breached that duty, and that such breach was an actual and proximate cause of plaintiff\u2019s injuries.\u201d Jones v. GMRI, Inc., 144 N.C. App. 558, 566, 551 S.E.2d 867, 873 (2001), cert. improv. allowed, 355 N.C. 275, 559 S.E.2d 787 (2002). \u201c[S]ummary judgment may be granted in a negligence action where there are no genuine issues of material fact and the plaintiff fails to show one of the elements of negligence.\u201d Lavelle v. Schultz, 120 N.C. App. 857, 859, 463 S.E.2d 567, 569 (1995), disc. rev. denied, 342 N.C. 656, 467 S.E.2d 715 (1996).\nAfter reviewing the limited documentation provided in the record on appeal, we find that plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege or forecast all elements of a claim for negligence against defendants. \u201cIt is generally recognized that an accountant may be held liable for damages naturally and proximately resulting from his failure to use that degree of knowledge, skill and judgment usually possessed by members of the profession in a particular locality.\u201d Snipes v. Jackson, 69 N.C. App. 64, 73, 316 S.E.2d 657, 662, disc. rev. denied, 312 N.C. 85, 321 S.E.2d 899 (1984). Here the complaint alleges numerous breaches of the standard of care owed by the defendants-accountants to plaintiff. See, e.g., Bartlett v. Jacobs, 124 N.C. App. 521, 525, 477 S.E.2d 693, 696 (1996), disc. rev. denied, 345 N.C. 340, 483 S.E.2d 161 (1997). This Court noted in Bartlett that in a successful negligence claim against accountants, plaintiff offered evidence of the proper standard of care by introducing affidavits of individuals \u201cexperienced in accounting and familiar with the standard of care owed by an accountant.\u201d Id. No such affidavits appear in the record here and the allegations of the complaint alone do not withstand defendants\u2019 summary judgment motion and affidavits. See id; see also N.C. R. Civ. Proc. 56(e) (1999) (\u201cWhen a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but his response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If he does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against him.\u201d).\nPlaintiff also failed to allege or forecast the value of her injury or how defendants\u2019 breach of their duty to her proximately caused injury to plaintiff. In her affidavit, plaintiff states that \u201c[m]y rejection of the $550,000 settlement offer made to me by my former husband, Michael G. Shook, was based on the erroneous information contained in the Lynch & Howard, P.A. valuation reports furnished to me prior to the court proceedings.\u201d Plaintiff does not indicate what she actually received in equitable distribution proceedings, nor does she forecast how she was harmed by rejecting the settlement offer in reliance on \u201cerroneous information\u201d from defendants. Thus, because plaintiff has failed to forecast essential elements of negligence, we conclude that the trial court properly ruled that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to plaintiff\u2019s allegations of negligence. Summary judgment was appropriate on this basis. See Campbell v. City of High Point, 144 N.C. App. 493, 495-97, 551 S.E.2d 443, 445-47, aff'd, 354 N.C. 566, 557 S.E.2d 529 (2001). Therefore, we do not reach defendants\u2019 arguments regarding judicial immunity or collateral estoppel, and regard the mention thereof in the trial court\u2019s order as \u201csur-plusage.\u201d See, e.g., United Virginia Bank v. Air-Lift Associates, 79 N.C. App. 315, 323, 339 S.E.2d 90, 95 (1986) (noting that findings and conclusions in the trial court\u2019s order for summary judgment are surplusage and unnecessary to the appellate court\u2019s later determinations).\nAffirmed.\nJudges THOMAS and JOHN concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "HUDSON, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Burford & Lewis, PLLC, by Robert J. Burford, for plaintiff-appellant.", "Boyce & Isley, PLLC, by Eugene Boyce, for defendant-appellee Homer G. Duncan.", "Schiller Law Firm, by Marvin Schiller, for defendant-appellees Lynch & Howard and Maylon E. Little.", "Shanahan Law Group, by Kieman Shanahan, for defendant-appellee Thomas Miller." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "DANA E. SHOOK, Plaintiff v. LYNCH & HOWARD, P.A., THOMAS M. MILLER, MAYLON E. LITTLE, and HOMER G. DUNCAN, JR., Defendants\nNo. COA01-321\n(Filed 7 May 2002)\nAccountants and Accounting\u2014 summary judgment \u2014 accountants\u2019 valuations\nThe trial court did not err in a negligence case by granting . summary judgment in favor of defendant accountants and accounting firm arising out of defendants\u2019 business valuations of the companies of plaintiff\u2019s husband for plaintiff\u2019s equitable distribution proceedings, because: (1) plaintiff failed to offer evidence of the proper standard of care by introducing affidavits of individuals experienced in accounting and familiar with the standard of care owed by an accountant; and (2) plaintiff failed to allege or forecast the value of her injury or how defendants\u2019 breach of their duty to her proximately caused her injury.\nAppeal by plaintiff from order entered 13 December 2000 by Judge Henry V. Barnette, Jr. in Wake County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 23 January 2002.\nBurford & Lewis, PLLC, by Robert J. Burford, for plaintiff-appellant.\nBoyce & Isley, PLLC, by Eugene Boyce, for defendant-appellee Homer G. Duncan.\nSchiller Law Firm, by Marvin Schiller, for defendant-appellees Lynch & Howard and Maylon E. Little.\nShanahan Law Group, by Kieman Shanahan, for defendant-appellee Thomas Miller." }, "file_name": "0185-01", "first_page_order": 215, "last_page_order": 219 }