{
  "id": 8300910,
  "name": "MARTHA RITTER, Plaintiff v. KERFOOT RITTER, Defendant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ritter v. Ritter",
  "decision_date": "2006-02-21",
  "docket_number": "No. COA05-530",
  "first_page": "181",
  "last_page": "185",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "176 N.C. App. 181"
    }
  ],
  "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": "522 S.E.2d 577",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "578-79",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "351 N.C. 159",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        1155801
      ],
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "161-62",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/351/0159-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "511 S.E.2d 298",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "299",
          "parenthetical": "stating that the \"North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure are mandatory and 'failure to follow these rules will subject an appeal to dismissal' \""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "350 N.C. 64",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        131998
      ],
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "65",
          "parenthetical": "stating that the \"North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure are mandatory and 'failure to follow these rules will subject an appeal to dismissal' \""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/350/0064-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "610 S.E.2d 360",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "360",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Steingress v. Steingress, 350 N.C. 64, 65, 511 S.E.2d 298, 299 (1999) (stating that the \"North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure are mandatory and 'failure to follow these rules will subject an appeal to dismissal' \""
        },
        {
          "page": "360"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "359 N.C. 400",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        3799435
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "401",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Steingress v. Steingress, 350 N.C. 64, 65, 511 S.E.2d 298, 299 (1999) (stating that the \"North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure are mandatory and 'failure to follow these rules will subject an appeal to dismissal' \""
        },
        {
          "page": "401"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/359/0400-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 355,
    "char_count": 8399,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.711,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.1540046093849542e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7689274548438925
    },
    "sha256": "b7a902fa212bcced4dc28b972ecd1bcd6424ac855fe4b50d2d046bcd72a1f64c",
    "simhash": "1:91b85f78736e9ce4",
    "word_count": 1367
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:09:49.892129+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges McGEE and STEELMAN concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "MARTHA RITTER, Plaintiff v. KERFOOT RITTER, Defendant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MARTIN, Chief Judge.\nPlaintiff appeals from the trial court\u2019s order dated 26 August 2004 denying her \u201cPreliminary Motion to Alter/Amend the Order of June 30, 2004,\u201d by which the trial court had dismissed her claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and as barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff also appeals the trial court\u2019s order of 8 November 2004 setting a hearing date to consider the issue of whether personal sanctions should be imposed upon plaintiff and denying her pending motions. Defendant has moved to dismiss the appeal and to impose sanctions against plaintiff. For the reasons stated below, we grant defendant\u2019s motions.\nPlaintiff\u2019s appeal contained five assignments of error. Her first two assignments of error refer to the trial court\u2019s order dated 30 June 2004. However, plaintiff gave notice of appeal only from the trial court\u2019s orders dated 26 August 2004 and 8 November 2004. The North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure require the notice of appeal to \u201cdesignate the judgment or order from which appeal is taken.\u201d N.C.R. App. P. 3(d) (2005). Therefore, plaintiff\u2019s assignments of error No. 1 and No. 2 are not properly before this Court and are hereby dismissed. See Viar v. N.C. Dep\u2019t. of Transp., 359 N.C. 400, 401, 610 S.E.2d 360, 360 (2005) (quoting Steingress v. Steingress, 350 N.C. 64, 65, 511 S.E.2d 298, 299 (1999) (stating that the \u201cNorth Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure are mandatory and \u2018failure to follow these rules will subject an appeal to dismissal\u2019 \u201d).\nPlaintiff\u2019s third assignment of error pertains to the trial court\u2019s order dated 26 August 2004. The North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure require an appellant to order a transcript of the proceedings within fourteen days of filing notice of appeal and to file \u201cwritten documentation of the transcript arrangement with the clerk of the trial tribunal, and serve a copy of it upon all other parties of record, and upon the person designated to prepare the transcript.\u201d N.C.R. App. P. 7 (2005). The record before us indicates that plaintiff failed to order the transcript within the requisite time and failed to serve the proper notice upon defendant. Where no transcript is ordered, North Carolina Rule of Appellate Procedure 11 requires the appellant to serve its proposed record on appeal within thirty-five days of filing the notice of appeal. The record indicates plaintiff did not file a motion for extension of time to serve the proposed record on appeal until 19 November 2004, more than eighty days after filing the notice of appeal. Therefore, we dismiss plaintiffs third assignment of error, pertaining to the 26 August 2004 order, pursuant to Rules 7 and 11' of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Viar, 359 N.C. at 401, 610 S.E.2d at 360.\nPlaintiffs fourth and fifth assignments of error pertain to the trial court\u2019s order entered 8 November 2004. This order sets a time and place for a hearing on the issue of whether to impose personal sanctions against plaintiff, overrules any pending objections to the hearing, denies any pending requests for continuance or delay of the hearing, and denies any pending requests for reconsideration of prior orders or rulings of the court related to plaintiffs cause of action. Plaintiff filed notice of appeal to this order, stating \u201c[plaintiff notes an appeal of the November 8, 2004 order, entered on November 9, 2004.\u201d\nAppeal from this 8 November 2004 order, however, is clearly interlocutory. \u201cInterlocutory orders and judgments are those \u2018made during the pendency of an action which do not dispose of the case, but instead leave it for further action by the trial court to settle and determine the entire controversy.\u2019 Generally, there is no right of immediate appeal from interlocutory orders.\u201d Sharpe v. Worland, 351 N.C. 159, 161-62, 522 S.E.2d 577, 578-79 (1999) (citations omitted). Because the 8 November 2004 order did not constitute a final judgment as to any of the claims or parties, did not affect a substantial right, and contemplated further action by the trial court, there is no right of immediate appeal therefrom. Id. Therefore, we dismiss plaintiff\u2019s fourth and fifth assignments of error.\nDefendant also moves to sanction plaintiff under Rules 25 and 34 of the N.C. Rules of Appellate Procedure for her violations of the rules of appellate procedure and her intent to \u201charass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.\u201d N.C.R. App. P. 34 (2005). The record before us contains ample evidence plaintiff attempted to delay the resolution of this litigation by filing numerous non-meritorious motions in the trial court and this Court, forcing defendant and the courts to respond to each of them, and appealing an interlocutory order of the trial court. She was cautioned several times by the trial court for ignoring its previous orders, ignoring court rules and procedural requirements, and harassing court personnel. We conclude plaintiff needlessly increased the cost of litigation for both defendant and the court system, and we therefore tax plaintiff personally with the costs of this appeal and the attorney fees incurred in this appeal by defendant. Pursuant to Rule 34(c), we remand this case to the trial court for a determination of the reasonable amount of attorney fees incurred by defendant in responding to this appeal.\nDismissed and Remanded.\nJudges McGEE and STEELMAN concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MARTIN, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Martha Ritter, pro se, plaintiff.",
      "Bass, Bryant & Fahney, P.L.L.C., by John Walter Bryant and Eva C. Currin, for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MARTHA RITTER, Plaintiff v. KERFOOT RITTER, Defendant\nNo. COA05-530\n(Filed 21 February 2006)\n1. Appeal and Error\u2014 preservation of issues \u2014 failure to give proper notice of appeal\nAlthough plaintiffs first two assignments of error refer to the trial court\u2019s order dated 30 June 2004, these assignments of error are dismissed because plaintiff gave notice of appeal only from the trial court\u2019s orders dated 26 August 2004 and 8 November 2004. N.C. R. App. P. 3(d).\n2. Appeal and Error\u2014 preservation of issues \u2014 failure to timely order transcript \u2014 failure to timely file motion for extension of time to serve proposed record\nPlaintiffs third assignment of error pertaining to the 26 August 2004 order is dismissed pursuant to Rules 7 and 11 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, because: (1) plaintiff failed to order the transcript within the requisite time and failed to serve the proper notice upon defendant; and (2) plaintiff did not file a motion for extension of time to serve the proposed record on appeal until more than eighty days after filing the notice of appeal.\n3. Appeal and Error\u2014 appealability \u2014 setting hearing on sanctions \u2014 interlocutory order\nPlaintiff\u2019s fourth and fifth assignments of error pertaining . to the 8 November 2004 order setting a hearing on sanctions against plaintiff are dismissed as an appeal from an interlocutory order, because the 8 November 2004 order did not constitute a final judgment as to any of the claims or parties, did not affect a substantial right, and contemplated further action by the trial court.\n4. Pleadings\u2014 sanctions \u2014 appellate rules violations \u2014 intent to harass or cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in cost of litigation \u2014 attorney fees\nDefendant\u2019s motion to sanction plaintiff under N.C. R. App. P. 25 and 34 for violations of the rules of appellate procedure and her intent to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation is granted, and the case is remanded to the trial court for a determination of the reasonable amount of attorney fees incurred by defendant in responding to this appeal to be taxed personally to plaintiff along with the costs of this appeal, because: (1) the record contains ample evidence plaintiff attempted to delay the resolution of this litigation by filing numerous nonmeritorious motions in the trial court and the Court of Appeals, forcing defendant and the courts to respond to each of them, and appealing an interlocutory order of the trial court; and (2) plaintiff was cautioned several times by the trial court for ignoring its previous orders, ignoring court rules and procedural requirements, and harassing court personnel.\nAppeal by plaintiff from orders entered 26 August 2004 and 8 November 2004 by Judge John R. Jolly in Wake County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 23 January 2006.\nMartha Ritter, pro se, plaintiff.\nBass, Bryant & Fahney, P.L.L.C., by John Walter Bryant and Eva C. Currin, for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0181-01",
  "first_page_order": 213,
  "last_page_order": 217
}