{
  "id": 8547185,
  "name": "PEGGY SELLS MILLER, Individually and as Administratrix of the ESTATE OF WILLIAM HERBERT MILLER v. B. V. BELK, JR., JAMES E. TODD and JOEL L. KIRKLEY, JR.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Miller v. Belk",
  "decision_date": "1973-04-25",
  "docket_number": "No. 7326SC44",
  "first_page": "70",
  "last_page": "75",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "18 N.C. App. 70"
    }
  ],
  "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": "180 S.E. 2d 424",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "11 N.C. App. 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8552250
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/11/0001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "278 F. Supp. 717",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F. Supp.",
      "case_ids": [
        5338819
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f-supp/278/0717-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "176 S.E. 2d 161",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "277 N.C. 94",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561932
      ],
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/277/0094-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 544,
    "char_count": 11983,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.514,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.0481931868512054e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9076556200766918
    },
    "sha256": "b6c23d0682c800dd877f10fa701471a81b725581ae7b6984af5632b64fc2c2e2",
    "simhash": "1:97a051ef1c750c17",
    "word_count": 2003
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:14:36.293491+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Campbell and Morris concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "PEGGY SELLS MILLER, Individually and as Administratrix of the ESTATE OF WILLIAM HERBERT MILLER v. B. V. BELK, JR., JAMES E. TODD and JOEL L. KIRKLEY, JR."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BRITT, Judge.\nDefendant\u2019s first principal contention on appeal is that the complaint does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted and that this is necessary to support a default judgment. In determining the sufficiency of a complaint, we are guided by Justice Sharp\u2019s discussion on the subject in Sutton v. Duke, 277 N.C. 94, 176 S.E. 2d 161 (1970), as follows:\nUnder the \u201cnotice theory of pleading\u201d a statement of claim is adequate if it gives sufficient notice of the claim asserted \u201cto enable the adverse party to answer and prepare for trial, to allow for the application of the doctrine of res judicata, and to show the type of case brought. . . . \u201d Moore \u00a7 8.13. \u201cMere vagueness or lack of detail is not ground for a motion to dismiss.\u201d Such a deficiency \u201cshould be attacked by a motion for a more definite statement.\u201d Moore \u00a7 12.08 and cases cited therein.\nIn further appraising the sufficiency of a complaint Mr. Justice Black said, in Conley v. Gibson, supra at 45-46, \u201c[W]e follow, of course, the accepted rule that a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.\u201d \u201cThis rule,\u201d said the Court in American Dairy Queen Corporation v. Augustyn, 278 F. Supp. 717, \u201cgenerally precludes dismissal except in those instances where the face of the complaint discloses some insurmountable bar to recovery.\u201d If the complaint discloses an unconditional affirmative defense which defeats the claim asserted or pleads facts which deny the right to any relief on the alleged claim it will be dismissed. Moore \u00a7 12.08 summarizes the federal decisions as follows: \u201c \u2018A [complaint] may be dismissed on motion if clearly without any merit; and this want of merit may consist in an absence of law to support a claim of the sort made, or of facts sufficient to make a good claim, or in the disclosure of some fact which will necessarily defeat the claim.\u2019 But a complaint should not be dismissed for insufficiency unless it appears to a certainty that plaintiff is entitled to no relief under any state of facts which could be proved in support of the claim.\u201d\nIn substance the complaint in the instant case alleges the following: On 13 April 1971 plaintiff duly qualified as admin-istratrix of her deceased husband\u2019s estate. Thereafter, plaintiff decided to sell a laundry and dry cleaning business which she and her husband had operated prior to his death. The business was advertised for sale and on 14 June 1971 defendant, as attorney and agent for Belk and Todd, submitted to plaintiff\u2019s attorney a written offer to purchase the business for $18,000.00. On 24 June 1971 a written offer of $19,000.00 was made by defendant to plaintiff\u2019s attorney. Defendant having been informed that a third party had offered $20,000.00 for the business, defendant made an offer of $20,100.00 by phone on 28 June 1971. This offer was accepted. On 29 June 1971, the offer was submitted in writing to plaintiff\u2019s attorney, defendant promising to pay $20,100.00 to plaintiff\u2019s attorney by noon on 30 June 1971. Plaintiff\u2019s attorney made demand for the purchase price at noon on 30 June 1971, and. was told by defendant that the money would be paid at 2:00 p.m. on the same date. When demand was made on defendant at 2:00 p.m., plaintiff\u2019s attorney was told to return for the money at 4:00 p.m. on the same day. At 4:00 p.m. on 30 June 1971, acting on his own behalf, defendant executed a check on his trust account in the amount of $20,100.00 and presented it to plaintiff\u2019s attorney. The check was returned unpaid by the drawee bank marked \u201cinsufficient funds\u201d and plaintiff has been unable to collect the' check.\nOn 30 June 1971 defendant and Belk went to the. .business premises and told plaintiff that they had bought her business and instructed her to remove personal belongings from the premises,and to notify utility companies to take a final reading and give her a final bill. Defendant further instructed plaintiff to deliver possession of the premises to a woman who would assume operation of the. business on 1 July 1971. No woman appeared to assume management of the business on that date.\nOn 2 July 1971 plaintiff\u2019s attorney gave written notice to defendant, personally and as attorney.and agent for Belk and Todd, that they were in default of their contract to purchase and that plaintiff would seek legal remedies available to her unless the sale be concluded by 5:00 p.m. on 2 July 1971. Defendants did not perform the contract, and the property was sold to a purchaser for $10,744.56. Plaintiff then prayed that the. court award her, among other things, compensation for loss in selling-price caused by defendants\u2019 default.\nWe think plaintiff alleged, sufficient facts to show a contract between defendant and her for the sale and purchase of the business, defendant\u2019s failure to perform the contract, and plaintiff\u2019s damages resulting from defendant\u2019s default. We hold that the complaint is sufficient to state a claim for relief against defendant Kirkley, and the court did not err in denying his motion to vacate the entry of default.\nDefendant contends that the court erred in entering default judgment against him for the reason that he was given no notice of the hearing on plaintiff\u2019s application for default judgment. This contention has merit.\nJudgments entered must comply with the requirements of the general statutes and the Rules of Civil Procedure. Hill v. Hill, 11 N.C. App. 1, 180 S.E. 2d 424 (1971). The default judgment in the instant case was entered pursuant to G.S. 1A-1, Rule 55(b) (2), which provides, among other things, that before judgment by default can be entered by a judge against a party who has appeared in the action, that party (or, if appearing by representative, his representative) shall be served with written notice of the application for judgment at least three days prior to the'hearing on the application.\nPrior to the rendering of the default judgment on 4 August 1972, defendant had \u201cappeared\u201d in this action. On 10 January 1972, although belatedly, he filed an application for an extension of time in which to answer; on 18 January 1972, he filed a motion to vacate the entry of default, and on 17 March 1972, he filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. He was present for a hearing in superior court on his motion to vacate in April 1972. However, defendant was not served with written notice of plaintiff\u2019s application for default judgment at least three days prior to the hearing on the application as expressly required by Rule 55(b) (2).\nFurthermore, the hearing on plaintiff\u2019s application for default judgment was held and the default judgment was entered during the 31 July 1972 Schedule \u201cC\u201d Criminal Session of Mecklenburg Superior Court. G.S. 7A-49.2(a) requires that notice must be given before motions in civil actions may be heard at criminal sessions of court. Under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 7, plaintiff\u2019s application for default judgment is considered a motion in a civil action.\nWe hold, therefore, that for failure of plaintiff to provide notice as required, defendant is entitled to have the default judgment of 4 August 1972 vacated.\nWe have considered the other numerous contentions argued by defendant in his brief and find them without merit.\nFor the reasons stated, the default judgment is vacated and the cause is remanded to the superior court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.\nThe order dated 30 May 1972 is affirmed.\nThe judgment dated 4 August 1972 is vacated and cause remanded.\nJudges Campbell and Morris concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BRITT, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gene H. Kendall for plaintiff appellee.",
      "John B. Whitley for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "PEGGY SELLS MILLER, Individually and as Administratrix of the ESTATE OF WILLIAM HERBERT MILLER v. B. V. BELK, JR., JAMES E. TODD and JOEL L. KIRKLEY, JR.\nNo. 7326SC44\n(Filed 25 April 1973)\n1. Contracts \u00a7 25 \u2014 breach of contract \u2014 damages action \u2014 sufficiency of complaint\nIn an action for damages for breach of contract to purchase a laundry and dry cleaning business, plaintiff\u2019s complaint was sufficient to state a claim for relief where it contained allegations that by telephone defendant agreed to purchase plaintiff\u2019s business, defendant failed to tender the purchase money as agreed, plaintiff gave defendant notice that he was in default on the contract' to purchase and plaintiff subsequently sold the business to another purchaser for substantially less than the contract price; therefore, entry of default was proper where defendant filed no pleading in response to plaintiff's \u25a0 complaint.\n2. Judgments \u00a7 13; Rules of Civil Procedure \u00a7 55 \u2014 appearance by. defendant\u2014 entry of default without notice \u2014 error\n,, Where plaintiff filed an application for an extension of time in which to answer, filed a motion to vacate entry of default, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and was present for a hearing in superior court on his motion to vacate, he appeared in the action within the. meaning of Rule-65(b) (2), and he should have been served with written .notice of plaintiff\u2019s application for default judgment at least three days prior-to the hearing on the application; failure to provide the statutory' notice requires that the default judgment be vacated. - 1\n3. Courts \u00a7 10 \u2014 criminal session \u2014 default judgment \u2014 no notice \u2014 error\nIn a civil action to recover damages for breach of . contract, G.S. 7A-49.2(a) required that defendant be given notice of the hearing on plaiptiff\u2019s application for default judgment since the hearing was held \u00e1t a criminal session of superior court.\nAppeal by defendant Joel L., Kirkley, Jr., from order and judgment of Friday, Judge, entered at the 17 April 1972 Schedule \u201cB\u201d Civil Session and at the 31 July 1972 Schedule \u201cC\u201d Criminal Session of Mecklenburg Superior Court.\nOn 2 December 1971 plaintiff, individually and as adminis-tratrix of her deceased husband\u2019s estate, instituted this action to recover damages for breach of an alleged contract to sell and purchase a laundry and dry cleaning business. Summons and complaint were served on defendant Kirkley on 8 December 1971. \u2022 ...\nOn 10 January 1972, defendant Kirkley having failed to file any pleading in response to\u2019plaintiff\u2019s complaint and having failed to obtain an extension of time within which to file pleading, at plaintiff\u2019s request, the assistant clerk'entered default against said defendant who was serving as his own counsel at the time.\nOn 18 January 1972, Kirkley filed a motion to vacate the entry of default. A hearing was held on this motion at the 17 April 1972 Schedule \u201cB\u201d Civil Session of Mecklenburg Superior Court. The court made findings of fact, conclusions of law and on 30 May 1972 entered an order denying the motion to vacate the. entry of default. Defendant Kirkley excepted to the order. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action as against defendants Belk and Todd on . 31 May 1972.\nA hearing was held on 4 August 1972 at the 31 July 1972 Schedule \u201cC\u201d Criminal Session to determine whether plaintiff was entitled to a default judgment against defendant Kirkley. In support of her application for default judgment, plaintiff presented evidence as to damages. The court made findings of fact and conclusions of law and by order dated 4 August 1972 decreed that \u201cplaintiff have and recover \u00f3f the defendant, Joel L. Kirkley, Jr., the sum of $9,355.44 in compensation for the loss in selling price resulting from the default of defendant Joel L. Kirkley, Jr., and that she recover the sum of $35.00 from the defendant Joel L._ Kirkley, Jr., as a result of the wrongful charging of a classified telephone advertisement to her,\u201d together with interest and costs of the action.\nDefendant gave notice of appeal to this court from the judgment dated and filed 4 August 1972 and \u201cfrom all intermediate orders and rulings in this cause and in particular that Order signed by Judge Friday dated May 30, 1972.\u201d\nGene H. Kendall for plaintiff appellee.\nJohn B. Whitley for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0070-01",
  "first_page_order": 94,
  "last_page_order": 99
}