{
  "id": 3734807,
  "name": "JOHN HODGES, Plaintiff v. DAVID MOORE, Defendant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hodges v. Moore",
  "decision_date": "2010-07-20",
  "docket_number": "No. COA10-69",
  "first_page": "722",
  "last_page": "724",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "205 N.C. App. 722"
    }
  ],
  "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": "629 S.E.2d 337",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12635769
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2006,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "241"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/629/0337-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "177 N.C. App. 546",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8301807
      ],
      "year": 2006,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/177/0546-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "215 S.E.2d 162",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "165"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "26 N.C. App. 138",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8550092
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "142"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/26/0138-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "354 S.E.2d 459",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "464"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "319 N.C. 274",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4748509
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "279-80"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/319/0274-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "243 S.E.2d 145",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1978,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "147"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "36 N.C. App. 109",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551364
      ],
      "year": 1978,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "111"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/36/0109-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "588 S.E.2d 20",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2003,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "30",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Mosley v. National Finance Co., 36 N.C. App. 109, 111, 243 S.E.2d 145, 147 (1978), overruled on other grounds by Crow v. Citicorp Acceptance Co., 319 N.C. 274, 279-80, 354 S.E.2d 459, 464 (1987)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "161 N.C. App. 20",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8955097
      ],
      "year": 2003,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "33-34",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Mosley v. National Finance Co., 36 N.C. App. 109, 111, 243 S.E.2d 145, 147 (1978), overruled on other grounds by Crow v. Citicorp Acceptance Co., 319 N.C. 274, 279-80, 354 S.E.2d 459, 464 (1987)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/161/0020-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 266,
    "char_count": 3660,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.762,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.232378735636765e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5106013902741048
    },
    "sha256": "0ff13325b5fdbe823f7b0297e8d8ab93f9cea069224a61bb9436002997ad2df2",
    "simhash": "1:3d73066815782771",
    "word_count": 606
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:30:55.510002+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges STEPHENS and HUNTER, JR. concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "JOHN HODGES, Plaintiff v. DAVID MOORE, Defendant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "STEELMAN, Judge.\nThe trial court did not err by refusing to enter findings of fact pursuant to Rule 52 of the Rules of Civil Procedure in an order granting defendant\u2019s motion for summary judgment.\nI. Factual and Procedural Background\nOn 18 March 2009, John Hodges (plaintiff) filed this action against David Moore (defendant). The complaint alleged that plaintiff contracted with Street Styles, Inc. to customize his Nissan Sentra motor vehicle. Plaintiff paid Street Styles, Inc. monies for the work, which was not performed. Defendant\u2019s son was convicted in criminal court for failing to complete the work after being paid, and was ordered to pay restitution. Defendant\u2019s son paid only $400.00 of the restitution.\nThis action seeks recovery of monetary damages from defendant, who was a shareholder in the corporation. Plaintiff\u2019s complaint seeks to \u201cpierce the corporate veil\u201d in order to recover from defendant individually. On 15 October 2009, Judge DeRamus granted defendant\u2019s motion for summary judgment and dismissed plaintiff\u2019s action. Plaintiff appeals.\nII. Refusal of Trial Court to Enter Findings of Fact\nIn his only argument on appeal, plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in failing to make findings of fact and conclusions of law after a request by plaintiff\u2019s counsel that they be included in the order. We disagree.\nJudge DeRamus\u2019s order stated that the trial court \u201cfinds and concludes that there is no genuine issue of material fact and Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.\u201d We hold this order to be sufficient and that the provisions of Rule 52 of the Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply to orders granting summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56.\n\u201cRule 52(a)(2) does not apply to the decision on a summary judgment motion because, if findings of fact are necessary to resolve an issue, summary judgment is improper.\u201d Broughton v. McClatchy Newspapers, Inc., 161 N.C. App. 20, 33-34, 588 S.E.2d 20, 30 (2003) (quoting Mosley v. National Finance Co., 36 N.C. App. 109, 111, 243 S.E.2d 145, 147 (1978), overruled on other grounds by Crow v. Citicorp Acceptance Co., 319 N.C. 274, 279-80, 354 S.E.2d 459, 464 (1987)). \u201cThere is no necessity for findings of fact where facts are not at issue, and summary judgment presupposes that there are no triable issues of material fact.\u201d Insurance Agency v. Leasing Corp., 26 N.C. App. 138, 142, 215 S.E.2d 162, 165 (1975).\nThe case cited by plaintiff, Agbemavor v. Keteku, 177 N.C. App. 546, 629 S.E.2d 337 (2006), specifically acknowledged the above-cited holding in Broughton, and held that it was not applicable because the trial court\u2019s rulings appealed from were made pursuant to Rules 12(b)(2), (b)(3), and (b)(5), and not pursuant to Rule 56. Id. at 550, 629 S.E.2d at 241.\nPlaintiff does not argue the' merits of the trial court\u2019s ruling.\nAFFIRMED.\nJudges STEPHENS and HUNTER, JR. concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "STEELMAN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Steven A. McCloskey, Attorney at Law, by Steven A. McCloskey, for plaintiff-appellant.",
      "Ellis B. Drew, III and R. Michael Wells, Jr., for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JOHN HODGES, Plaintiff v. DAVID MOORE, Defendant\nNo. COA10-69\n(Filed 20 July 2010)\nCivil Procedure\u2014 summary judgment \u2014 Rule 56 \u2014 no findings of fact required \u2014 Rule 52 inapplicable\nThe trial court did not err by refusing to enter findings of fact pursuant to Rule 52 of the Rules of Civil Procedure in an order granting defendant\u2019s motion for summary judgment as the provisions of Rule 52 do not apply to orders granting summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56.\nAppeal by plaintiff from order entered 15 October 2009 by Judge Judson D. DeRamus, Jr. in Forsyth County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 9 June 2010.\nSteven A. McCloskey, Attorney at Law, by Steven A. McCloskey, for plaintiff-appellant.\nEllis B. Drew, III and R. Michael Wells, Jr., for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0722-01",
  "first_page_order": 750,
  "last_page_order": 752
}