{
  "id": 3822033,
  "name": "THE CITY OF CHARLOTTE, a municipal corporation, Plaintiffp v. CAMMIE KATHLEEN WILLIAMS, and spouse, TIM WILLIAMS, MOSES LUSKI, Trustee, TRACKAR, INC., Assignee, ERNEST DEHNERT, Substitute Trustee, BRANCH BANKING & TRUST COMPANY, Beneficiary, FRANK KNOX, Substitute Trustee, MECKLENBURG COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR, and any other parties in interest, Defendants",
  "name_abbreviation": "City of Charlotte v. Williams",
  "decision_date": "2011-03-01",
  "docket_number": "No. COA10-715",
  "first_page": "257",
  "last_page": "260",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "210 N.C. App. 257"
    }
  ],
  "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": "619 S.E.2d 495",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12633954,
        12633955
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "496",
          "parenthetical": "internal citations omitted"
        },
        {
          "page": "496",
          "parenthetical": "quotation marks and citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/619/0495-01",
        "/se2d/619/0495-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "573 S.E.2d 522",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 5,
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "524",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        },
        {
          "page": "524",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        },
        {
          "page": "524-25"
        },
        {
          "page": "525"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "154 N.C. App. 454",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        9250541
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "457",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        },
        {
          "page": "457"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/154/0454-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "155 S.E.2d 772",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1967,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "784"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "271 N.C. 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8562278
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "14"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/271/0001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "360 N.C. 46",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        3786529
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "47-48",
          "parenthetical": "internal citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/360/0046-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 136-108",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "weight": 6,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "emphasis added"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 457,
    "char_count": 8635,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.751,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.11382825794090698
    },
    "sha256": "d2fa2e133648786d55a88822344499d4e18c741fd0ed0657fc46ddd0ed3d51dc",
    "simhash": "1:926a57ae77fe0dd0",
    "word_count": 1379
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:51:45.819483+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges GEER and HUNTER, JR., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "THE CITY OF CHARLOTTE, a municipal corporation, Plaintiffp v. CAMMIE KATHLEEN WILLIAMS, and spouse, TIM WILLIAMS, MOSES LUSKI, Trustee, TRACKAR, INC., Assignee, ERNEST DEHNERT, Substitute Trustee, BRANCH BANKING & TRUST COMPANY, Beneficiary, FRANK KNOX, Substitute Trustee, MECKLENBURG COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR, and any other parties in interest, Defendants"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "STEPHENS, Judge.\nIn this condemnation action, Plaintiff the City of Charlotte took a portion of Defendant Cammie Kathleen Williams\u2019 property for part of a road project. On 9 January 2008, the City filed a complaint, declaration of taking, and notice of deposit and service of plat. On 20 March 2008, Defendants Cammie Kathleen Williams and Tim Williams filed an answer and constitutional defenses, and on 13 August 2009, they filed an amended answer by written consent of the City. On 31 August 2009, Defendant filed a motion for determination of issues other than damages and to compel an amended'plat. Following a 2 December 2009 hearing on the motion, on 21 December 2009, the trial court denied Defendant\u2019s motion. Defendant appeals and brings forward three arguments: that the trial court erred in failing to (I) comply with the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 136-108; (II) determine that she had established adverse possession of certain property; and (III) compel a revised plat of her property. As discussed herein, we agree with Defendant\u2019s first argument and remand to the trial court for entry of findings and conclusions. We do not address Defendant\u2019s remaining arguments.\nThe City took a corner of Defendant\u2019s property at 216 Stetson Drive (\u201cthe property\u201d) that included part of a paved parking lot which exists on Defendant\u2019s property and extends onto the adjacent property. The condemnation action was filed on 9 January 2008; by deed dated 12 December 2008 and filed on 15 December 2008, Defendant conveyed the property in fee simple to Lake Creek Commercial, LLC. The deed conveying the property included a metes and bounds description \u201cLESS AND EXCEPT\u201d the property condemned and recorded by the City. Defendant did not file her motion for determination of issues other than damages and to compel an amended plat in the condemnation action until 31 August 2009, more than eight months following her sale of the property. In her motion, Defendant claimed adverse possession of a strip of land on an adjacent property onto which the paved parking lot of the property extended. In the 21 December 2009 order it entered on Defendant\u2019s motion, without making any findings of fact or conclusions of law, the trial court ruled that:\n1. Defendant\u2019s Motion pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 136-108 as to the adverse possession claim of [] Defendant[] has been Denied.\n2. Defend\u00e1nt\u2019s Motion to Compel revised plat from [] Plaintiff has been Denied.\nGrounds for Appellate Review\nAt the outset, we note that Defendant\u2019s appeal is interlocutory. Our Supreme Court has held that\n[ijnterlocutory. orders may be appealed immediately -under two circumstances. The first is when the trial court certifies no just reason exists to delay the appeal after a final judgment as to fewer than all the claims or parties in the action. The second is when the appeal involves a substantial right of the appellant and the appellant will be injured if the error is not corrected before final judgment.\nN.C. Dep\u2019t. of Trans. v. Stagecoach Village, 360 N.C. 46, 47-48, 619 S.E.2d 495, 496 (2005) (internal citations omitted). Here, there was no Rule 54(b) certification by the trial court. However, in condemnation proceedings, \u201cinterlocutory orders concerning title or area taken must be immediately appealed as vital preliminary issues involving substantial rights adversely affected.\u201d Id. at 48, 619 S.E.2d at 496 (quotation marks and citations omitted).\nOne of the purposes of G.S. 136-108 is to eliminate from the jury trial any question as to what land the [govemment'entity] is condemning and any question as to its title. Therefore, should there be a fundamental error in the judgment resolving these vital preliminary issues, ordinary prudence requires an immediate appeal, for that is the proper method to obtain relief from legal errors.\nN.C. State Highway Com. v. Nuckles, 271 N.C. 1, 14, 155 S.E.2d 772, 784 (1967). Because Defendant appeals from an order regarding her claim of adverse possession, which involves title, a vital preliminary issue in this condemnation proceeding, her interlocutory appeal is properly before us.\nAnalysis\nDefendant first argues that the trial court erred in failing to comply with the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 136-108. We agree.\nA\u201cclaim of ownership . . . via adverse possession may be addressed in a N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 136-108 condemnation hearing.\u201d N.C. Dep\u2019t. of Trans. v. Byerly, 154 N.C. App. 454, 457, 573 S.E.2d 522, 524 (2002) (citation omitted). In condemnation proceedings, section 136-108 provides:\nAfter the filing of the plat, the judge, upon motion and 10 days\u2019 notice by either the Department of Transportation or the owner, shall, either in or out of term, hear and determine any and all issues raised by the pleadings other than the issue of damages, including, but not limited to, if controverted, questions of necessary and proper parties, title to the land, interest taken, and area taken.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 136-108 (2009) (emphasis added). \u201cIn hearings pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 136-108, the trial court, after resolving any motions and preliminary matters, conducts a bench trial on the disputed issues except for damages.\u201d Byerly, 154 N.C. App. at 457, 573 S.E.2d at 524 (citations omitted). In such a determination proceeding, \u201cthe trial judge must make adequate findings of fact which support the conclusions of law.\u201d Id. (citing N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 52(a)(1)). Defendant asserts that the trial court erred in failing to make adequate findings and conclusions regarding her adverse possession claim following its hearing on her motion. In Byerly, \u201cthe trial court issued one mixed finding of fact and conclusion of law regarding [the] defendant\u2019s adverse possession claim, which not only fails to comply with Rule 52(a)(1), but also forms an inadequate basis for this Court to conduct a review and assess appellant\u2019s contentions.\u201d Id. at 458, 573 S.E.2d at 524-25. Thus, we remanded Byerly to the trial court for additional and adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law, pursuant to Rule 52(a)(1). Id. at 458, 573 S.E.2d at 525.\nLikewise, here, in her 31 August 2009 motion, Defendant asserted adverse possession related to the property and the condemnation action, a proper claim in a motion under section 136-108. On 2 December 2009, the trial court held a hearing pursuant to section 136-108. As such, it was required by statute and case law to resolve the issues raised by Defendant\u2019s motion and to make adequate findings and conclusions in support thereof. However, the order denying Defendant\u2019s motion contains no findings or conclusions; it merely denies the motion without explanation. This not only violates the requirements of section 136-108 and Rule 52(a)(1), it forms an inadequate basis for this Court to conduct any type of appellate review of the merits of Defendant\u2019s adverse possession claim. Thus, we are unable to address Defendant\u2019s remaining arguments on appeal. We express no opinion as to the validity of Defendant\u2019s adverse possession claim or the counter-arguments made by the City, but instead remand the matter to the trial court for entry of a new order containing adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law.\nRemanded.\nJudges GEER and HUNTER, JR., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "STEPHENS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Office of the City Attorney, by Gretchen R. Nelli and Chris Clare, for Plaintiff",
      "The Odom Firm, PLLC, by David W. Murray and Thomas L. Odom, Jr., for Defendant Cammie Kathleen Williams."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE CITY OF CHARLOTTE, a municipal corporation, Plaintiffp v. CAMMIE KATHLEEN WILLIAMS, and spouse, TIM WILLIAMS, MOSES LUSKI, Trustee, TRACKAR, INC., Assignee, ERNEST DEHNERT, Substitute Trustee, BRANCH BANKING & TRUST COMPANY, Beneficiary, FRANK KNOX, Substitute Trustee, MECKLENBURG COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR, and any other parties in interest, Defendants\nNo. COA10-715\n(Filed 1 March 2011)\n1. Appeal and Error\u2014 interlocutory orders and appeals\u2014 condemnation proceeding \u2014 substantial right affected\nPlaintiffs appeal from the trial court\u2019s interlocutory order regarding her claim for adverse possession in a condemnation proceeding affected a substantial right and was immediately appealable.\n2. Cities and Towns\u2014 condemnation proceedings \u2014 adverse possession \u2014 inadequate findings and conclusions\nThe trial court erred in a condemnation proceeding by failing to make adequate findings and conclusions regarding plaintiff\u2019s adverse possession claim following its hearing on her motion.\nAppeal by Defendant Cammie Kathleen Williams from order entered 21 December 2009 by Judge W. Robert Bell in Mecklenburg County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 13 January 2011.\nOffice of the City Attorney, by Gretchen R. Nelli and Chris Clare, for Plaintiff\nThe Odom Firm, PLLC, by David W. Murray and Thomas L. Odom, Jr., for Defendant Cammie Kathleen Williams."
  },
  "file_name": "0257-01",
  "first_page_order": 265,
  "last_page_order": 268
}