{
  "id": 12168343,
  "name": "HUTTIG BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC., Plaintiff v. ANGUS ALLAN McDONALD, JR., Defendant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Huttig Building Products, Inc. v. Mcdonald",
  "decision_date": "2014-05-20",
  "docket_number": "No. COA13-1419",
  "first_page": "17",
  "last_page": "19",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "234 N.C. App. 17"
    }
  ],
  "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": "132 S.E.2d 345",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1963,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "347",
          "parenthetical": "per curiam"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "260 N.C. 191",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8573658
      ],
      "year": 1963,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "195",
          "parenthetical": "per curiam"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/260/0191-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "87 S.E.2d 519",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1955,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "520"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "242 N.C. 302",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8614107
      ],
      "year": 1955,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/242/0302-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "540 S.E.2d 313",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "322"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "353 N.C. 142",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        135912
      ],
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "156"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/353/0142-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 314,
    "char_count": 5038,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.731,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2468489475641244
    },
    "sha256": "c79919087a195e021f274ab77a5f36395a5d01be2097bb2438532704469a2cc9",
    "simhash": "1:936bd479d71ecaba",
    "word_count": 831
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:30:06.319137+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge McGEE concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "HUTTIG BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC., Plaintiff v. ANGUS ALLAN McDONALD, JR., Defendant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "CALABRIA, Judge.\nAngus Allan McDonald, Jr. (\u201cdefendant\u201d) appeals from the trial court\u2019s order which required Branch Banking and Trust Company (\u201cBB&T\u201d) to release funds from defendant\u2019s joint bank accounts to Huttig Building Products, Inc. (\u201cplaintiff\u2019). We dismiss the appeal.\nOn 10 May 2012, the Wake County District Court entered a judgment in favor of plaintiff against defendant in the amount of $31,985.58 plus interest and attorney\u2019s fees. On 5 November 2012, plaintiff filed a motion with the Wake County Clerk of Superior Court (\u201cthe Clerk\u201d) seeking, inter alia, an order compelling BB&T to turn over any funds in its possession that belonged to defendant to plaintiff\u2019s counsel to be applied to the judgment. On 8 January 2013, the Clerk entered an order directing BB&T to release $9,089.69 from defendant\u2019s various accounts with BB&T to plaintiff, by and through its attorneys.\nDefendant appealed the Clerk\u2019s order to the Wake County Superior Court. After a hearing, the trial court entered an order directing BB&T to release the $9,089.60 in defendant\u2019s accounts to plaintiff, by and through its attorneys. Defendant appeals.\nDefendant\u2019s sole argument on appeal is that the trial court erred by ordering BB&T to release all of the funds from four BB&T accounts that defendant held jointly with other family members. Defendant contends that he \u201chas no interest in the BB&T accounts because [defendant] \u215b elderly mother and teenaged children contributed all of the funds to the BB&T accounts.\u201d\nHowever, we are unable to consider defendant\u2019s argument because \u201conly a \u2018party aggrieved\u2019 may appeal a trial court order or judgment, and such a party is one whose rights have been directly or injuriously affected by the action of the court.\u201d Bailey v. State, 353 N.C. 142, 156, 540 S.E.2d 313, 322 (2000). If, as defendant has admitted, he has no interest in the challenged funds, defendant likewise has no interest which would allow him to appeal the trial court\u2019s order. Defendant\u2019s rights were not directly or injuriously affected when the trial court directed the BB&T funds, which defendant acknowledges he did not own, to be turned over to plaintiff. Thus, he will receive no benefit from a reversal of the trial court\u2019s order. Instead, the funds at issue would be restored to a nonparty and defendant would remain liable to plaintiff for the portion of his prior judgment that the BB&T funds were intended to satisfy.\nIn Langley v. Gore, 242 N.C. 302, 87 S.E.2d 519 (1955), the appeal was \u201cdirected solely to the judgment of the court below in respect to disposition of the fund of money in the hands of the Clerk of Superior Court.\u201d Id. at 303, 87 S.E.2d at 520. The Court concluded that the defendant-appellants were not a party aggrieved because there was\nnothing in the record to show that defendants have any interest in, or claim to [the funds at issue]. Indeed, defendants say in their brief, filed on this appeal, that they \u201cdid not claim the fund as theirs personally.\u201d They assert, however, reasons why they think plaintiffs are not entitled to the fund.\nId. Consequently, One Langley Court dismissed the appeal ex mero motu.\nIn the instant case, defendant, like the defendants in Langley, expressly disclaims any interest in the funds at issue in this appeal and instead \u201cassertfs] ... reasons why [he] think[s] plaintiff[ is] not entitled to the fund.\u201d Id. Thus, we are bound by Langley to conclude that defendant is not a party aggrieved by the trial court\u2019s order. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider defendant\u2019s challenges to the court\u2019s order and must dismiss defendant\u2019s appeal. See Gaskins v. Blount Fertilizer Co., 260 N.C. 191, 195, 132 S.E.2d 345, 347 (1963) (per curiam) (\u201cWhere a party is not aggrieved by the judicial order entered ... his appeal will be dismissed.\u201d).\nDismissed.\nChief Judge MARTIN and Judge McGEE concur.\n. N one of the individuals that defendant identified as the true owners of the funds in the shared joint accounts at issue attempted to intervene in the instant case. Additionally, neither party made a motion to join these joint account holders as necessary parties.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "CALABRIA, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Smith, Debnam, Narron, Drake, Saintsing & Myers, LLP, by Gerald H. Groon, Jr., for plaintiff-appellee.",
      "Robbins May & Rich, LLP, by P. Wayne Robbins and Neil T. Oakley, for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "HUTTIG BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC., Plaintiff v. ANGUS ALLAN McDONALD, JR., Defendant\nNo. COA13-1419\nFiled 20 May 2014\nAppeal and Error\u2014appealability\u2014jurisdiction\u2014not an aggrieved party\nDefendant\u2019s appeals from the trial court\u2019s order which required BB&T to release funds from defendant\u2019s joint bank accounts to plaintiff Huttig Building Products, Inc. was dismissed. Defendant admitted that he had no interest in the challenged funds. Thus, the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction since defendant was not a party aggrieved by the trial court\u2019s order.\nAppeal by defendant from order entered 13 August 2013 by Judge Michael J. O\u2019Foghludha in Wake County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 7 April 2014.\nSmith, Debnam, Narron, Drake, Saintsing & Myers, LLP, by Gerald H. Groon, Jr., for plaintiff-appellee.\nRobbins May & Rich, LLP, by P. Wayne Robbins and Neil T. Oakley, for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0017-01",
  "first_page_order": 27,
  "last_page_order": 29
}