{ "id": 8413268, "name": "INDIAN ROCK ASSOCIATION, INC., A North Carolina Non-Profit Corporation, Plaintiff v. MARVIN L. BALL, JR., and wife, IRENE F. BALL, Defendants", "name_abbreviation": "Indian Rock Ass'n v. Ball", "decision_date": "2004-12-21", "docket_number": "No. COA04-175", "first_page": "648", "last_page": "652", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "167 N.C. App. 648" } ], "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": "240 S.E.2d 503", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "35 N.C. App. 135", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8547717 ], "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/35/0135-01" ] }, { "cite": "547 S.E.2d 2", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "353 N.C. 370", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 135874, 135726, 135919, 135793, 135581 ], "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/353/0370-03", "/nc/353/0370-01", "/nc/353/0370-04", "/nc/353/0370-05", "/nc/353/0370-02" ] }, { "cite": "535 S.E.2d 55", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "64" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "139 N.C. App. 637", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9497581 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "650" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/139/0637-01" ] }, { "cite": "550 S.E.2d 260", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "264", "parenthetical": "quoting Brooks v. WalMart Stores, Inc., 139 N.C. App. 637, 650, 535 S.E.2d 55, 64 (2000), disc. review denied, 353 N.C. 370, 547 S.E.2d 2 (2001)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "145 N.C. App. 418", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11438193 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "423", "parenthetical": "quoting Brooks v. WalMart Stores, Inc., 139 N.C. App. 637, 650, 535 S.E.2d 55, 64 (2000), disc. review denied, 353 N.C. 370, 547 S.E.2d 2 (2001)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/145/0418-01" ] }, { "cite": "511 S.E.2d 671", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1999, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "132 N.C. App. 237", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11237465 ], "year": 1999, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/132/0237-01" ] }, { "cite": "504 U.S. 555", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11730070 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "the \"irreducible constitutional minimum\" of Article III of the U.S. Constitution requires plaintiff who wishes to pursue claim in federal court to demonstrate (1) injury in fact, (2) causal relationship between injury and conduct complained of, and (3" }, { "parenthetical": "the \"irreducible constitutional minimum\" of Article III of the U.S. Constitution requires plaintiff who wishes to pursue claim in federal court to demonstrate (1) injury in fact, (2) causal relationship between injury and conduct complained of, and (3" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/504/0555-01" ] }, { "cite": "552 S.E.2d 220", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "227", "parenthetical": "citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 119 L. Ed. 2d 351 (1992) (the \"irreducible constitutional minimum\" of Article III of the U.S. Constitution requires plaintiff who wishes to pursue claim in federal court to demonstrate (1) injury in fact, (2" }, { "page": "227" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "146 N.C. App. 159", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11355165 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "168", "parenthetical": "citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 119 L. Ed. 2d 351 (1992) (the \"irreducible constitutional minimum\" of Article III of the U.S. Constitution requires plaintiff who wishes to pursue claim in federal court to demonstrate (1) injury in fact, (2" }, { "page": "168-69" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/146/0159-01" ] }, { "cite": "568 S.E.2d 883", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "885" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "153 N.C. App. 176", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9249002 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "179" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/153/0176-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 478, "char_count": 8720, "ocr_confidence": 0.77, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.363655400518839e-08, "percentile": 0.48149409482946687 }, "sha256": "6e301d367762b0f7b7afdda043615e26fee8949f9f72bfe6efb22338e6034982", "simhash": "1:82224c6eb6753d62", "word_count": 1337 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:53:28.670431+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges HUDSON and ELMORE concur." ], "parties": [ "INDIAN ROCK ASSOCIATION, INC., A North Carolina Non-Profit Corporation, Plaintiff v. MARVIN L. BALL, JR., and wife, IRENE F. BALL, Defendants" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "WYNN, Judge.\nDefendants Marvin L. Ball, Jr. and Irene F. Ball appeal from orders entered 6 November 2003 allowing Plaintiff Indian Rock Association, Inc.\u2019s motion for summary judgment and denying the Balls\u2019 motion to dismiss. After careful review, we affirm the trial court\u2019s orders.\nThe procedural and factual history of the instant appeal is as follows: Indian Rock Association is a non-profit corporation organized and chartered in May 1971 for the purposes of maintaining the Indian Rock Subdivision\u2019s common grounds and facilities and enforcing compliance with covenants and restrictions placed on all lots within the subdivision. These covenants and restrictions were imposed by Lakeside Realty Company, Inc., which developed the Indian Rock Subdivision. As Indian Rock Association and the Balls stipulated and agreed in their pretrial conference on 9 June 2003, a 1968 affidavit executed by Lakeside Realty stated that \u201cthe buyer [of any Indian Rock Subdivision lot] shall promptly pay $10.00 to the Indian Rock Association and all other assessments which become due after the date of sales contract.\u201d Moreover, the affidavit stated that a buyer \u201cis entitled to full enjoyment of the Association\u2019s common properties subject to\u201d certain recorded restrictions and covenants. The parties further stipulated and agreed that all Indian Rock Subdivision lots, including those owned by the Balls, are subject to those covenants, restrictions, and assessments.\nIn December 1971, Lakeside Realty recorded a deed conveying certain streets and parks to Indian Rock Association. Indian Rock Association owns no subdivision lots or property other than those streets and parks. In May 1976, an amendment to the Indian Rock bylaws was recorded; attached thereto was a Lakeside Realty resolution transferring all of its rights, title, and privileges in the restrictive covenants previously held by Lakeside Realty to Indian Rock Association.\nMr. Ball participated in Indian Rock Association\u2019s corporate activities from 1982 until at least 1984 as a member of Indian Rock Association\u2019s Board of Directors and- at least one committee. Moreover, the Balls paid assessments on their lots until at least 1987. The Balls have since refused to pay dues and assessments to Indian Rock Association despite numerous demands. Indian Rock Association therefore filed an action similar to the case at bar on or around 27 July 1990. After a ruling in favor of Mr. Ball, Indian Rock Association voluntarily dismissed the case.\nIndian Rock Association filed the instant action on 5 November 1998, seeking monetary assessments against the Balls. The Balls filed motions to dismiss. Indian Rock Association and the Balls entered into a pretrial conference order including substantial fact stipulations. Following a hearing on 25 August 2003, the trial court denied the Balls\u2019 motion to dismiss and granted summary judgment in favor of Indian Rock Association. The Balls appealed.\nThe Balls first contend that the trial court committed reversible error in allowing Indian Rock Association\u2019s motion for summary judgment because Indian Rock Association did not have legal authority to collect assessments from the Balls and consequently no standing to assert a claim for those assessments. We disagree.\nWhether Indian Rock Association has standing is a question of law and thus reviewed de novo by this Court. Lee Ray Bergman Real Estate Rentals v. N.C. Fair Hous. Ctr., 153 N.C. App. 176, 179, 568 S.E.2d 883, 885 (2002). \u201cTo bring suit on its own behalf, an association need only meet the \u2018irreducible constitutional minimum\u2019 of a sufficient stake in a justiciable case or controversy.\u201d Creek Pointe Homeowner\u2019s Ass\u2019n v. Happ, 146 N.C. App. 159, 168, 552 S.E.2d 220, 227 (2001) (citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 119 L. Ed. 2d 351 (1992) (the \u201cirreducible constitutional minimum\u201d of Article III of the U.S. Constitution requires plaintiff who wishes to pursue claim in federal court to demonstrate (1) injury in fact, (2) causal relationship between injury and conduct complained of, and (3) likelihood that injury would be redressed by favorable verdict); Transcon. Gas Pipe Line Corp. v. Calco Enter., 132 N.C. App. 237, 511 S.E.2d 671 (1999)).\nHere, Lakeside Realty, the subdivision developer, conveyed subdivision streets and parks to Indian Rock Association. Indian Rock Association maintains the subdivision common grounds and facilities and enforces compliance with covenants and restrictions placed on all lots within the subdivision. In order to fulfill its obligations, Indian Rock Association was sanctioned to, and did, collect funds from all subdivision property owners, including, for numerous years, the Balls. Clearly, Indian Rock Association\u2019s inability to collect assessments from property owners\ninjures the association in its ability to carry out th[ese] dutfies]. The injury is causally connected to the defendants\u2019] alleged behavior, and likely would be redressed by a favorable verdict in this action. Therefore, we hold that on the facts of this case, the association had standing to bring this suit[.]\nCreek Pointe Homeowner\u2019s Ass\u2019n, 146 N.C. App. at 168-69, 552 S.E.2d at 227.\nThe Balls next argue that the trial court committed reversible error in allowing Indian Rock Association\u2019s motion for summary judgment because the covenants based on which Indian Rock Association sought to collect assessments are too vague to be enforceable. However, \u201cDefendants] \u2018cannot assert this on appeal because [they] failed to raise this issue before the trial court[.]\u2019 \u201d Crist v. Crist, 145 N.C. App. 418, 423, 550 S.E.2d 260, 264 (2001) (quoting Brooks v. WalMart Stores, Inc., 139 N.C. App. 637, 650, 535 S.E.2d 55, 64 (2000), disc. review denied, 353 N.C. 370, 547 S.E.2d 2 (2001)); N.C. R. App. P. 10. While the Balls cite to their Assignments of Error Nos. 1 and 2 for this proposition, nothing in their Assignments of Error nor anything else in the record before this Court raises this issue. Whether the covenants based on which Indian Rock Association sought to collect assessments are too vague to be enforceable is therefore not properly presented for our consideration.\nIn sum, we affirm the trial court\u2019s order granting Indian Rock Association\u2019s motion for summary judgment.\nAffirmed.\nJudges HUDSON and ELMORE concur.\n. The Balls rely heavily on Beech Mountain Property Owners\u2019 Assoc. v. Current, 35 N.C. App. 135, 240 S.E.2d 503 (1978) in arguing that Indian Rock lacks standing. This reliance is, however, misplaced. In contrast with the case sub judice, the Beech Mountain Property Owners\u2019 Association owned no subdivision property and was not authorized to enforce restrictions on lot owners.", "type": "majority", "author": "WYNN, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "William T. Skinner, IV, for plaintiff-appellee.", "Hux, Livermon & Armstrong, L.L.P., by H. Lawrence Armstrong, Jr., for defendant-appellants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "INDIAN ROCK ASSOCIATION, INC., A North Carolina Non-Profit Corporation, Plaintiff v. MARVIN L. BALL, JR., and wife, IRENE F. BALL, Defendants\nNo. COA04-175\n(Filed 21 December 2004)\n1. Associations\u2014 maintenance of subdivision common areas and facilities \u2014 standing\u2014authority to collect assessments\nThe trial court did not err by granting plaintiff association\u2019s motion for summary judgment even though defendant subdivision property owners assert that plaintiff does not have legal authority to collect assessments from defendants and consequently no standing to assert a claim for those assessments, because: (1) the subdivision developer conveyed subdivision streets and parks to plaintiff; (2) plaintiff maintains the subdivision common grounds and facilities and enforces compliance with covenants and restrictions placed on all lots within the subdivision; (3) in order to fulfill its obligation, plaintiff was sanctioned to, and did, collect funds from all subdivision property owners; and (4) plaintiff\u2019s inability to collect assessments from property owners injures the association in its ability to carry out these duties.\n2. Appeal and Error\u2014 preservation of issues \u2014 failure to raise at trial\nAlthough defendant subdivision property owners contend the trial court erred by allowing plaintiff association\u2019s motion for summary judgment even though defendants contend the covenants based on which plaintiff sought to collect assessments are too vague to be enforceable, this assignment of error is dismissed because: (1) defendants failed to raise this issue before the trial court; and (2) nothing in defendants\u2019 assignments of error nor anything else in the record raises this issue.\nAppeal by Defendants from orders entered 6 November 2003 by Judge Alfred W. Kwasikpui in District Court, Northhampton County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 2 November 2004.\nWilliam T. Skinner, IV, for plaintiff-appellee.\nHux, Livermon & Armstrong, L.L.P., by H. Lawrence Armstrong, Jr., for defendant-appellants." }, "file_name": "0648-01", "first_page_order": 678, "last_page_order": 682 }