{ "id": 8187790, "name": "RETHEA C. MASSEY, Petitioner v. DOUGLAS A. HOFFMAN, Respondent", "name_abbreviation": "Massey v. Hoffman", "decision_date": "2007-07-17", "docket_number": "No. COA06-1338", "first_page": "731", "last_page": "736", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "184 N.C. App. 731" } ], "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": "625 S.E.2d 785", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12635074, 12635075, 12635076 ], "year": 2005, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/625/0785-01", "/se2d/625/0785-02", "/se2d/625/0785-03" ] }, { "cite": "618 S.E.2d 276", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12633851 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "278" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/618/0276-01" ] }, { "cite": "86 S.E.2d 893", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1955, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "898" }, { "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "242 N.C. 20", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8608317 ], "year": 1955, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "27" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/242/0020-01" ] }, { "cite": "341 N.C. 648", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 793193, 793069, 793076, 793204, 793145 ], "year": 1995, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/341/0648-04", "/nc/341/0648-01", "/nc/341/0648-02", "/nc/341/0648-03", "/nc/341/0648-05" ] }, { "cite": "457 S.E.2d 312", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "314" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "118 N.C. App. 692", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11920727 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "696" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/118/0692-01" ] }, { "cite": "259 S.E.2d 917", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "\"It is undisputed that the State has a legitimate interest in the disposition of dead bodies and the preservation of the sanctity of the grave.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "298 N.C. 304", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8572105, 8572043, 8572075, 8572013, 8572147 ], "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "\"It is undisputed that the State has a legitimate interest in the disposition of dead bodies and the preservation of the sanctity of the grave.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/298/0304-04", "/nc/298/0304-02", "/nc/298/0304-03", "/nc/298/0304-01", "/nc/298/0304-05" ] }, { "cite": "255 S.E.2d 325", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "328", "parenthetical": "\"It is undisputed that the State has a legitimate interest in the disposition of dead bodies and the preservation of the sanctity of the grave.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "41 N.C. App. 534", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8550383 ], "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "537", "parenthetical": "\"It is undisputed that the State has a legitimate interest in the disposition of dead bodies and the preservation of the sanctity of the grave.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/41/0534-01" ] }, { "cite": "130 S.E. 189", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1925, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "192", "parenthetical": "\"Rights of burial are peculiar and are somewhat of a public nature and are subject to the police power[]\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "190 N.C. 520", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8608702 ], "year": 1925, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "527", "parenthetical": "\"Rights of burial are peculiar and are somewhat of a public nature and are subject to the police power[]\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/190/0520-01" ] }, { "cite": "360 N.C. 174", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3793766, 3788363, 3795889, 3789044, 3793752, 3794619, 3788252, 3795613 ], "year": 2005, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/360/0174-03", "/nc/360/0174-08", "/nc/360/0174-05", "/nc/360/0174-07", "/nc/360/0174-06", "/nc/360/0174-02", "/nc/360/0174-01", "/nc/360/0174-04" ] }, { "cite": "173 N.C. App. 201", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8353181 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "204" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/173/0201-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 65-74", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(1)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "546 U.S. 500", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 5937941 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "507", "parenthetical": "emphasis added" }, { "page": "1105", "parenthetical": "emphasis added" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/546/0500-01" ] }, { "cite": "493 S.E.2d 450", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "stating that the judge renders judgment when the judge announces a ruling in open court" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "347 N.C. 263", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 551138, 551077, 551207, 551251, 551284 ], "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "stating that the judge renders judgment when the judge announces a ruling in open court" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/347/0263-05", "/nc/347/0263-03", "/nc/347/0263-02", "/nc/347/0263-04", "/nc/347/0263-01" ] }, { "cite": "486 S.E.2d 735", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "737", "parenthetical": "stating that the judge renders judgment when the judge announces a ruling in open court" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "126 N.C. App. 800", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11713506 ], "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "803", "parenthetical": "stating that the judge renders judgment when the judge announces a ruling in open court" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/126/0800-01" ] }, { "cite": "402 S.E.2d 826", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "328 N.C. 329", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2538272, 2537697, 2540591, 2542867, 2544663 ], "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/328/0329-01", "/nc/328/0329-05", "/nc/328/0329-04", "/nc/328/0329-03", "/nc/328/0329-02" ] }, { "cite": "395 S.E.2d 675", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "395 S.E.2d 674", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "327 N.C. 426", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2495140, 2494919, 2493403, 2493532, 2495199 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/327/0426-03", "/nc/327/0426-01", "/nc/327/0426-04", "/nc/327/0426-05", "/nc/327/0426-02" ] }, { "cite": "391 S.E.2d 211", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "216" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "98 N.C. App. 423", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8524928 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "430" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/98/0423-01" ] }, { "cite": "468 S.E.2d 796", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "797-98" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "121 N.C. App. 606", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11919163 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "609" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/121/0606-01" ] }, { "cite": "453 S.E.2d 205", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "210" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "117 N.C. App. 663", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526174 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "670" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/117/0663-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 65-75", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 7, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)" }, { "page": "(a)", "parenthetical": "l-3" } ], "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 639, "char_count": 12393, "ocr_confidence": 0.757, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.2240919645422112e-07, "percentile": 0.603227832974046 }, "sha256": "5c658f27015787a7b2e5f9e8d49c8a85860204331d09f95a75ac1fac3300c169", "simhash": "1:636b7740952b8452", "word_count": 2112 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:54:59.559545+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges BRYANT and STROUD concur." ], "parties": [ "RETHEA C. MASSEY, Petitioner v. DOUGLAS A. HOFFMAN, Respondent" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "McCullough, Judge.\nOn 27 September 2004, Rethea Massey (\u201cpetitioner\u201d) filed a petition with the Wake County Clerk of Superior Court seeking access to Douglas Hoffman\u2019s (\u201crespondent\u201d) property at 3524 Hopkins Chapel Road in Zebulon, North Carolina, for the purpose of restoring, maintaining and visiting the grave sites of her relatives under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 65-75 (2005). An amended petition was thereafter filed on 4 October 2004 which alleged that respondent is the owner of property located at 3524 Hopkins Chapel Road which was formerly owned by petitioner\u2019s grandparents, Early Thomas Carter and Mary Amanda Ferrell Carter, and is the current site of petitioner\u2019s grandparents\u2019 graves. The allegations in the petition further set forth that two or three stillborn children bom to petitioner\u2019s aunt, Mabel Carter Perry, were also buried on the subject property beside the grave sites of petitioner\u2019s grandparents. Respondent refused to consent to allow petitioner to access his property for the purpose of restoring, maintaining and visiting the grave sites of her relatives and petitioner is unable to access the grave sites without entering upon respondent\u2019s property. Neither the order nor transcript is contained in the record. However, both parties agree that the clerk entered an order granting petitioner access to the grave sites at the hearing before the clerk and respondent gave notice of appeal.\nA bench trial was thereafter held in Wake County Superior Court on 7 March 2006. At the close of the evidence and after hearing oral arguments, the court announced its ruling granting petitioner access to respondent\u2019s property for the purpose of restoring, maintaining and visiting the grave sites of her relatives and directed counsel for petitioner to draw up an order. Before a written order was entered by the court, but after the close of the evidence and rendition of judgment by Judge Orlando Hudson, respondent filed a motion to dismiss, a motion for relief from judgment or order, and a motion to amend on 21 March 2006. The motion sought to amend respondent\u2019s answer by adding allegations with regard to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 65-75; a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 12(b)(6) (2005); the defense that N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 65-75 is unconstitutional, unenforceable and in violation of the fundamental law of North Carolina; and seeking a declaratory judgment. On 28 April 2006, Judge Orlando Hudson entered, an order in which he allowed the motion to amend the answer and dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, ruling that N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 65-75 \u201cviolates the fundamental law, the common law, Article I, Section 19 of the Constitution of the State of North Carolina, and Amendments 5 and 14 of the Constitution of the United States of America[.]\u201d From entry of that order, petitioner appeals.\nPetitioner contends on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing respondent\u2019s motion to amend after the hearing on the merits and erred in granting respondent\u2019s untimely motion under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 12(b)(6).\n\u201cWhether a motion to amend a pleading is allowed or denied is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and is accorded great deference.\u201d North River Ins. Co. v. Young, 117 N.C. App. 663, 670, 453 S.E.2d 205, 210 (1995). A motion to amend is not reviewable on appeal absent a showing of abuse of discretion. Dept. of Transportation v. Bollinger, 121 N.C. App. 606, 609, 468 S.E.2d 796, 797-98 (1996). \u201cAlthough a trial court is not required to state specific reasons for denial of a motion to amend, reasons that would justify a denial are \u2018(a) undue delay, (b) bad faith, (c) undue prejudice, (d) futility of amendment, and (e) repeated failure to cure defects by previous amendments.\u2019 \u201d Chicopee, Inc. v. Sims Metal Works, 98 N.C. App. 423, 430, 391 S.E.2d 211, 216 (citations omitted), disc. reviews denied, 327 N.C. 426, 395 S.E.2d 674, disc. review allowed, 327 N.C. 426, 395 S.E.2d 675 (1990), withdrawn, 328 N.C. 329, 402 S.E.2d 826 (1991).\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 12(h)(2) states that \u00e1 party may make a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under which relief may be granted under Rule 12(b)(6) \u201cin any pleading permitted or ordered under Rule 7(a), or by motion for judgment on the pleadings, or at the trial on the merits.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 12(h)(2). While our Court has long afforded great deference to trial courts in granting motions to amend, where there is a clear abuse of discretion, this Court must reverse the ruling of the lower court.\nIn the instant case, the trial court granted the motion to amend allowing respondent to amend the pleading to include a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 12(b)(6). Rule 12(h)(2) clearly provides that a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) may be made in a pleading or at the trial on the merits. It is clear that the trial on the merits had concluded where the trial judge announced his ruling granting the relief sought by petitioner and ordering petitioner to draft an order which would thereafter be entered as the written order by the court. See Abels v. Renfro Corp., 126 N.C. App. 800, 803, 486 S.E.2d 735, 737, disc. review denied, 347 N.C. 263, 493 S.E.2d 450 (1997) (stating that the judge renders judgment when the judge announces a ruling in open court). It was not until after completion of the trial and rendition of judgment by the trial court that respondent motioned the court to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).\nThe United States Supreme Court has stated, \u201cthe objection that a complaint \u2018 [f]ails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,\u2019 Rule 12(b)(6), may not be asserted post trial.\u201d Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 507, 163 L. Ed. 2d 1097, 1105 (2006) (emphasis added); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). \u201cUnder Rule 12(h)(2), that objection endures up to, but not beyond, trial on the merits[.]\u201d Id. We find this reasoning persuasive. Even though the trial court had not entered a written judgment, a judgment had been rendered in favor of petitioner and the trial on the merits had concluded. Allowing the motion to amend was an abuse of discretion and caused undue prejudice to petitioner, therefore we must reverse the order of the trial court.\nWhile we have held that the trial court erred in granting the motion to dismiss and could remand on this issue alone, we will address the constitutionality of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 65-75 on its face, recognizing that the issue is likely to arise at later proceedings.\nUnder N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 65-74, a descendent of a person whose remains are reasonably believed to be interred in a grave on private property may enter the property for the purpose of discovering, restoring, maintaining or visiting the grave with the consent of the property owner. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 65-74(1) (2005). However, if the consent of the private property owner cannot be obtained, the descendent may petition the clerk of the superior court for an order allowing the petitioner to enter the property for the purpose of discovering, restoring, maintaining or visiting the grave. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 65-75(a). The statute further states that the clerk shall issue such an order where the clerk finds the following:\n(1) There are reasonable grounds to believe that the grave or abandoned public cemetery is located on the property or that it is reasonably necessary to enter or cross the landowner\u2019s property to reach the grave or abandoned public cemetery.\n(2) The petitioner, or his designee, is a descendant of the deceased, or that the petitioner has a special interest in the grave or abandoned public cemetery.\n(3) The entry on the property would not unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of the property by the landowner.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 65-75(a)(l-3).\nRespondent contends that the aforementioned statute amounts to a taking of private property without just compensation. However, if an \u201c \u2018 \u201cact is a proper exercise of the police power, the constitutional provision that private property shall not be taken for public use, unless compensation is made, is not applicable.\u201d \u2019 \u201d City of Concord v. Stafford, 173 N.C. App. 201, 204, 618 S.E.2d 276, 278 (citations omitted), disc. review denied, 360 N.C. 174, 625 S.E.2d 785 (2005). Our Courts have long held that preservation of the sanctity of grave sites is a proper exercise of police power by the State of North Carolina. See Shields v. Harris, 190 N.C. 520, 527, 130 S.E. 189, 192 (1925) (\u201cRights of burial are peculiar and are somewhat of a public nature and are subject to the police power[]\u201d); Strickland v. Tant, 41 N.C. App. 534, 537, 255 S.E.2d 325, 328, cert. denied, 298 N.C. 304, 259 S.E.2d 917 (1979) (\u201cIt is undisputed that the State has a legitimate interest in the disposition of dead bodies and the preservation of the sanctity of the grave.\u201d).\nMoreover, this Court has expressly held that \u201c [protection of the public health, safety, morals and general welfare\u201d are the goals commonly included as within the lawful scope of the State\u2019s police powers. Eastern Appraisal Services v. State of North Carolina, 118 N.C. App. 692, 696, 457 S.E.2d 312, 314, appeal dismissed, disc. review denied, 341 N.C. 648, 457 S.E.2d 312 (1995). In Mills v. Cemetery Park Corp., 242 N.C. 20, 27, 86 S.E.2d 893, 898 (1955), the Supreme Court stated:\nThe sentiment of all civilized peoples, since earliest Biblical times, has held in great reverence the resting places of the dead as hallowed ground-. In such matters we deal with concerns that basically are spiritual. Awe toward the dead was a most powerful force in forming primitive systems for grappling with th,e supernatural. \u201cIt is a sound public policy to protect the burying place[] of the dead.\u201d\nId. (citation omitted).\nWhere the statute provides for access to another\u2019s property for the purposes of discovering, restoring, maintaining or visiting a grave, the act is a proper exercise of a police power and therefore not subject to the constitutional and fundamental provision that private property shall not be taken for a public use without just compensation.\nIt is unnecessary to address appellant\u2019s remaining assignments of error on appeal where the order of the trial court must be reversed.\nAccordingly, we reverse the order of the trial court allowing respondent\u2019s motion to amend and dismissing the action, and remand for entry of an order consistent with the oral order rendered by the trial court at the close of the hearing on the merits.\nReversed and remanded.\nJudges BRYANT and STROUD concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "McCullough, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Kirk, Kirk, Howell, Cutler & Thomas, L.L.P, by C. Terrell Thomas, Jr., and John W. Welch, Jr., for petitioner appellant.", "Boxley, Bolton, Garber & Haywood, L.L.P, by Ronald H. Garber, 'for respondent appellee.", "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Solicitor General Christopher G. Browning, Jr., and Special Deputy Attorney General Mark A. Davis, for the State." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "RETHEA C. MASSEY, Petitioner v. DOUGLAS A. HOFFMAN, Respondent\nNo. COA06-1338\n(Filed 17 July 2007)\n1. Pleadings\u2014 motion to amend \u2014 allowance after trial \u2014 failure to state a claim added\nThe trial court abused its discretion in an action seeking access to grave sites by allowing respondent\u2019s motion to amend to add a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim after a trial. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 12(h)(2) clearly provides that a motion to dismiss under Rule 12 (b)(6) may be made in a pleading or at a trial on the merits; here, although the trial court had not entered a written judgment, a judgment had been rendered in favor of petitioner and the trial on the merits had concluded.\n2. Cemeteries\u2014 access to grave site \u2014 not a taking\nIn a case decided on other grounds, the Court of Appeals stated that N.C.G.S. \u00a7 65-74 (which provides for access to another\u2019s property for the purposes of discovering, restoring, maintaining or visiting a grave) is a proper exercise of a police power and therefore not subject to the constitutional and fundamental provision that private property shall not be taken for a public use without just compensation.\nAppeal by petitioner from order entered 28 April 2006 by Judge Orlando F. Hudson, Jr., in Wake County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 26 April 2007.\nKirk, Kirk, Howell, Cutler & Thomas, L.L.P, by C. Terrell Thomas, Jr., and John W. Welch, Jr., for petitioner appellant.\nBoxley, Bolton, Garber & Haywood, L.L.P, by Ronald H. Garber, 'for respondent appellee.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Solicitor General Christopher G. Browning, Jr., and Special Deputy Attorney General Mark A. Davis, for the State." }, "file_name": "0731-01", "first_page_order": 763, "last_page_order": 768 }