{ "id": 8917697, "name": "DAVID MICHAEL MOQUIN, LYNN MOQUIN and ELIZABETH MOQUIN, Plaintiffs v. KENNETH EUGENE HEDRICK, Defendant", "name_abbreviation": "Moquin v. Hedrick", "decision_date": "2004-03-16", "docket_number": "No. COA03-502", "first_page": "345", "last_page": "349", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "163 N.C. App. 345" } ], "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": "378 S.E.2d 243", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "246" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "93 N.C. App. 453", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8528090 ], "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "458" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/93/0453-01" ] }, { "cite": "461 S.E.2d 1", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "4" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "120 N.C. App. 145", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11914394 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "150-51" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/120/0145-01" ] }, { "cite": "270 S.E.2d 482", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "490" }, { "page": "490" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "301 N.C. 108", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564338 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "120" }, { "page": "120" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/301/0108-01" ] }, { "cite": "365 S.E.2d 898", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "902" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "321 N.C. 706", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2566622 ], "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "713" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/321/0706-01" ] }, { "cite": "562 S.E.2d 82", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "93", "parenthetical": "noting that \"[o]ur courts have encouraged parties to join in lawsuits to better consolidate and facilitate cases\" and opposing statutory construction that would discourage parties from joining" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "149 N.C. App. 672", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9131361 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "687", "parenthetical": "noting that \"[o]ur courts have encouraged parties to join in lawsuits to better consolidate and facilitate cases\" and opposing statutory construction that would discourage parties from joining" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/149/0672-01" ] }, { "cite": "404 S.E.2d 359", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "363" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "103 N.C. App. 52", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8519458 ], "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "58" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/103/0052-01" ] }, { "cite": "200 S.E.2d 40", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "42" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "284 N.C. 236", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560879 ], "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "239" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/284/0236-01" ] }, { "cite": "464 S.E.2d 409", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "410", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" }, { "page": "411", "parenthetical": "quoting Black's Law Dictionary 841-42 (6th ed. 1990)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "342 N.C. 349", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 796111 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "351", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" }, { "page": "352" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/342/0349-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 6-21.1", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 630, "char_count": 11823, "ocr_confidence": 0.739, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.21240195856978533 }, "sha256": "d6263773dbe9c6017a751beedeccd56b1033738de447d53137f2fc5204463b96", "simhash": "1:2be86b02dfea4954", "word_count": 1921 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:27:37.331987+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges TIMMONS-GOODSON and ELMORE concur." ], "parties": [ "DAVID MICHAEL MOQUIN, LYNN MOQUIN and ELIZABETH MOQUIN, Plaintiffs v. KENNETH EUGENE HEDRICK, Defendant" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "BRYANT, Judge.\nKenneth Eugene Hedrick (defendant) appeals an order filed 17 February 2003 awarding attorney\u2019s fees pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 6-21.1 to plaintiffs David Michael Moquin, Lynn Moquin (the parents), and Elizabeth Moquin (the daughter).\nOn 15 August 2001, plaintiffs filed a negligence action against defendant and NPC International, Inc. d/b/a Pizza Hut Store No. 2578 for personal injuries sustained by the minor daughter in a car accident and for medical expenses to compensate the parents. Following a jury trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs, awarding the daughter $6,700.00 in compensation for her personal injuries and the parents $4,500.00 for medical expenses related to their daughter\u2019s injuries. Subsequently, the trial court, in an order filed 17 February 2003, awarded plaintiffs attorney\u2019s fees under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 6-21.1 in the amount of $5,000.00 for the representation of the daughter and $5,000.00 for the representation of the parents, for a total of $10,000.00.\nThe sole issue on appeal, and one of first impression, is whether the trial court erred in finding N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 6-21.1 applicable where the combined recovery for damages under the judgment exceeded $10,000.00.\nAlthough awards for attorney\u2019s fees are commonly made under section 6-21.1 and appealed, this Court has had little opportunity in the past to construe the language of the statute itself. Our Supreme Court has stated that for purposes of statutory construction:\n[T]his Court must first ascertain legislative intent to assure that both the purpose and the intent of the legislation are carried out. In undertaking this task, we look first to the language of the statute itself. When language used in the statute is clear and unambiguous, this Court must refrain from judicial construction and accord words undefined in the statute their plain and definite meaning.\nPoole v. Miller, 342 N.C. 349, 351, 464 S.E.2d 409, 410 (1995) (citations omitted).\nWe thus begin our analysis with section 6-21.1, which provides:\nIn any personal injury or property damage suit, . . . upon a finding by the court that there was an unwarranted refusal by the defendant insurance company to pay the claim which constitutes the basis of such suit, instituted in a court of record, where the judgment for recovery of damages is ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or less, the presiding judge may, in his discretion, allow a reasonable attorney fee to the duly licensed attorney representing the litigant obtaining a judgment for damages in said suit, said attorney\u2019s fee to be taxed as a part of the court costs.\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 6-21.1 (2003) (emphasis added).\nThe obvious purpose of this statute is to provide relief for a person who has sustained injury or property damage in an amount so small that, if he must pay his attorney out of his recovery, he may well conclude that [it] is not economically feasible to bring suit on his claim. In such a situation the Legislature apparently concluded that the defendant, though at fault, would have an unjustly superior bargaining power in settlement negotiations. . . . This statute, being remedial should be construed liberally to accomplish the purpose of the Legislature and to bring within it all cases fairly falling within its intended scope.\nHicks v. Albertson, 284 N.C. 236, 239, 200 S.E.2d 40, 42 (1973).\nBoth parties agree that this case turns on the definition of the term \u201cjudgment,\u201d which is undefined by the statute. In Poole, our Supreme Court, interpreting N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 68, stated: \u201cJudgment means \u2018[t]he final decision of the court resolving the dispute and determining the rights and obligations of the parties,\u2019 and \u2018[t]he law\u2019s last word in a judicial controversy.\u2019 \u201d Poole, 342 N.C. at 352, 464 S.E.2d at 411 (quoting Black\u2019s Law Dictionary 841-42 (6th ed. 1990)) (alteration in original) (emphasis omitted); see also 49 C.J.S. Judgments \u00a7 2, at 52 (1997) (\u201c[i]t has been held that a judgment is a confirmation and formalization of a party\u2019s damage award indicating how much a person has been injured\u201d). This definition, however, affords little guidance on how to interpret the legislative intent behind the use of the word \u201cjudgment\u201d in relation to recoveries by multiple plaintiffs.\nAlthough defendant contends \u201cjudgment for recovery of damages\u201d under section 6-21.1 must be narrowly construed to mean the combined, total recovery of the plaintiffs under the judgment in any case, this reading of the statute is too simplistic and does not comport with the plain language or the purpose behind the statute. The application of section 6-21.1 is triggered by a \u201cjudgment for recovery of damages [that] is ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or less\u201d; however, a reading of the statute as a whole reveals an additional emphasis on a party\u2019s status as \u201cthe litigant obtaining a judgment [for damages].\u201d Mickens v. Robinson, 103 N.C. App. 52, 58, 404 S.E.2d 359, 363 (1991); N.C.G.S. \u00a7 6-21.1. This focus on the \u201cjudgment for recovery of damages\u201d in relation to the individual \u201clitigant\u201d is consistent with the law on joint and several judgments.\nSection 6-21.1 uses the general heading of \u201cjudgment\u201d without differentiating between the subcategories of joint and several judgments. A joint judgment is one that is \u201cshared by two or more persons,\u201d Black\u2019s Law Dictionary 841 (7th ed. 1999) (defining \u201cjoint\u201d), and is entered in cases involving joint plaintiffs who have brought a cause of action that is joint, 49 C.J.S. Judgments \u00a7 33, at 87. Vice versa, if the causes of action brought by the plaintiffs are several, i.e. \u201cseparate\u201d or \u201cdistinct,\u201d Black\u2019s Law Dictionary 1378, and have been either consolidated for trial or joined under the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, a trial court is required to enter a several judgment. 49 C.J.S. Judgments \u00a7 33, at 87 (\u201ca joint recovery on separate, several, and independent causes of action in favor of separate plaintiffs is improper\u201d); N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rules 19 and 20(a) (2003) (necessary and permissive joinder of parties); N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 42(a). (2003) (rules for consolidation).\nBy focusing on the \u201cjudgment for recovery of damages\u201d with respect to \u201cthe litigant obtaining a judgment for damages,\u201d section 6-21.1 allows for the recognition of both types of judgments. When a cause of action is joint, the parties represent a united front sharing in the judgment and thus ultimately act as one, joint litigant. In that case, the $10,000.00 maximum triggering application of section 6-21.1 applies to the joint, total judgment for damages by the plaintiffs. On the other hand, with respect to several causes of action by plaintiffs in a consolidated or joint suit, for which a several judgment is required, see 49 C.J.S. Judgments \u00a7 33, at 87, the $10,000.00 maximum applies to each several recovery of damages under the judgment. Such a construction is consistent with the purpose behind the statute to encourage parties with small claims for personal injury or property damage to bring those actions despite the cost of litigation and the policy of this State to encourage parties to join or seek consolidation with similarly situated parties to further reduce their litigation costs and increase judicial economy. See Rhyne v. K-Mart Corp., 149 N.C. App. 672, 687, 562 S.E.2d 82, 93 (2002) (noting that \u201c[o]ur courts have encouraged parties to join in lawsuits to better consolidate and facilitate cases\u201d and opposing statutory construction that would discourage parties from joining). To add separate damage awards under a several judgment for purposes of determining the $10,000.00 maximum would have the effect of punishing, through the denial of attorney\u2019s fees, those plaintiffs who sought to join suit with other similarly situated individuals instead of initiating numerous, individual low-recovery lawsuits.\nWe now consider whether plaintiffs\u2019 complaint states a joint cause of action or several causes of action. In North Carolina, two independent causes of action arise when an unemancipated minor is injured through the negligence of another: (1) a claim on behalf of the child for her losses caused by the injury, and (2) a claim by the parent for loss of services during the child\u2019s minority and for medical expenses to treat the injury. Bolkhir v. N.C. State Univ., 321 N.C. 706, 713, 365 S.E.2d 898, 902 (1988); Flippin v. Jarrell, 301 N.C. 108, 120, 270 S.E.2d 482, 490 (1980); West v. Tilley, 120 N.C. App. 145, 150-51, 461 S.E.2d 1, 4 (1995); Brown v. Lyons, 93 N.C. App. 453, 458, 378 S.E.2d 243, 246 (1989). The parents\u2019 right of action is based upon their duty to care for and maintain their child. Flippin, 301 N.C. at 120, 270 S.E.2d at 490. Accordingly, plaintiffs\u2019 causes of actions, one for personal injuries to the daughter and one for medical expenses incurred by the parents, must be categorized as several. See also Black\u2019s Law Dictionary 1378 (defining \u201cseveral\u201d as \u201cseparate; particular; distinct\u201d). Under these circumstances, the judgment awarded by the trial court was a several (separate) judgment, requiring the trial court to consider each several (separate) recovery of damages under the judgment by plaintiffs for purposes of determining whether section 6-21.1 applied. Because plaintiffs\u2019 separate damage awards were less than $10,000.00, application of section 6-21.1 was triggered, and the trial court had the discretion to award attorney\u2019s fees thereunder.\nAffirmed.\nJudges TIMMONS-GOODSON and ELMORE concur.\n. The soundness behind this bifurcated construction of the statute is best illustrated by the following example: \u201c[I]n a suit for a money judgment where there is one count in the petition and one in a counterclaim, there can be only one judgment even though the court makes separate findings as to the plaintiffs cause and the defendant\u2019s counterclaim.\u201d 46 Am. Jur. 2d Judgments \u00a7 9 (1994). Supposing the trial court awarded damages to both the plaintiff and the defendant and the sum of both awards exceeded $10,000.00, but individually at least one award remained below that amount, the use of the word \u201cjudgment\u201d in section 6-21.1 could not be construed irrespective of the parties and causes of action involved so as to preclude an award of attorney\u2019s fees.\n. We note that the daughter and the parents were properly joined as parties under Rule 20 permitting:\nAll persons [to] join in one action as plaintiffs if they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative in respect of or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and if any question of law or fact common to all parties will arise in the action.\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 20(a).", "type": "majority", "author": "BRYANT, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "R. Clarke Speaks for plaintiff-appellees.", "Hedrick & Morton, L.L.P., by B. Danforth Morton, for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "DAVID MICHAEL MOQUIN, LYNN MOQUIN and ELIZABETH MOQUIN, Plaintiffs v. KENNETH EUGENE HEDRICK, Defendant\nNo. COA03-502\n(Filed 16 March 2004)\nCosts\u2014 attorney fees \u2014 $10,000 maximum judgment \u2014 separate awards to parents and child\nAn award of attorney fees under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 6-21.1 was affirmed where it was based on a negligence award of $6,700 to a daughter and $4,500 to her parents. The statutory $10,000 maximum for the award of attorney fees as costs applies to a joint cause of action in which the parties act as one litigant, but not to several causes of action tried jointly pursuant to a state policy encouraging judicial economy. Independent causes of action by a child and its parents arise when an unemancipated minor is injured through the negligence of another, and the separate awards here were less than $10,000.\nAppeal by defendant from order dated 17 February 2003 by Judge William C. Gore, Jr. in Brunswick County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 29 January 2004.\nR. Clarke Speaks for plaintiff-appellees.\nHedrick & Morton, L.L.P., by B. Danforth Morton, for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0345-01", "first_page_order": 375, "last_page_order": 379 }