{ "id": 12169302, "name": "In the Matter of the Appeal of Becky King Properties, LLC from the decision of the Brunswick County Board of Equalization and Review Concerning the Valuation and Taxation of Real Property for Tax Year 2012 In the Matter of the Appeal of Coastal Communities at Seawatch, LLC from the decision of the Brunswick County Board of Equalization and Review Concerning the Valuation and Taxation of Real Property for Tax Year 2012 In the Matter of the Appeal of Coastal Communities at Ocean Ridge Plantation, LLC from the Decision of the Brunswick County Board of Equalization and Review Concerning the Valuation and Taxation of Real Property for Tax Year 2012 In the Matter of the Appeal of Coastal Communities Development, LLC from the decision of the Brunswick County Board of Equalization and Review Concerning the Valuation and Taxation of Real Property for Tax Year 2012 In the Matter of the Appeal of Coastal Development & Realty Builder, LLC from the decision of the Brunswick County Board of Equalization and Review Concerning the Valuation and Taxation of Real Property for Tax Year 2012 In the Matter of the Appeal of Drewmark Investments, LLC from the decision of the Brunswick County Board of Equalization and Review Concerning the Valuation and Taxation of Real Property for Tax Year 2012 In the Matter of the Appeal of Eagle Point, LLC from the decision of the Brunswick County Board of Equalization and Review Concerning the Valuation and Taxation of Real Property for Tax Year 2012 In the Matter of the Appeal of Eastern Carolina's Construction & Development, LLC from the decision of the Brunswick County Board of Equalization & Review Concerning the Valuation and Taxation of Real Property for Tax Year 2012 In the Matter of the Appeal of Georgetown Land & Timber, LLC from the decision of the Brunswick County Board of Equalization and Review Concerning the Valuation and Taxation of Real Property for Tax Year 2012 In the Matter of the Appeal of MAS Properties, LLC from the decision of the Brunswick County Board of Equalization and Review Concerning the Valuation and Taxation of Real Property for Tax Year 2012 In the Matter of the Appeal of McDonald Development Associates, LLC from the decision of the Brunswick County Board of Equalization and Review Concerning the Valuation and Taxation of Real Property for Tax Year 2012 In the Matter of the Appeal of Ocean Isle Palms, LLC from the decision of the Brunswick County Board of Equalization and Review Concerning the Valuation and Taxation of Real Property for Tax Year 2012 In the Matter of the Appeal of Pointe West, LLC from the decision of the Brunswick County Board of Equalization and Review Concerning the Valuation and Taxation of Real Property for Tax Year 2012 In the Matter of the Appeal of Remuda Run, LLC from the decision of the Brunswick County Board of Equalization and Review Concerning the Valuation and Taxation of Real Property for Tax Year 2012 In the Matter of the Appeal of Rivers Edge Golf Club & Plantation, LLC from the decision of the Brunswick County Board of Equalization and Review Concerning the Valuation and Taxation of Real Property for Tax Year 2012 In the Matter of the Appeal of SeaScape at Holden Plantation, LLC from the decision of the Brunswick County Board of Equalization and Review Concerning the Valuation and Taxation of Real Property for Tax Year 2012 In the Matter of the Appeal of Seawatch at Sunset Harbor, LLC from the decision of the Brunswick County Board of Equalization and Review Concerning the Valuation and Taxation of Real Property for Tax Year 2012 In the Matter of the Appeal of William E. Saunders Jr., Trustee from the decision of the Brunswick County Board of Equalization and Review Concerning the Valuation and Taxation of Real Property for Tax Year 2012", "name_abbreviation": "In re the Appeal of Becky King Properties, LLC", "decision_date": "2014-07-01", "docket_number": "No. COA 13-1107", "first_page": "699", "last_page": "705", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "234 N.C. App. 699" } ], "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 502", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12633957, 12633958, 12633959 ], "year": 2005, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/619/0502-01", "/se2d/619/0502-02", "/se2d/619/0502-03" ] }, { "cite": "265 S.E. 2d 168", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "other citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "297 N.C. 410", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8570534 ], "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "other citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/297/0410-01" ] }, { "cite": "314 S.E.2d 493", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "499", "parenthetical": "citing State v. Gibbs, 297 N.C. 410, 265 S.E. 2d 168 (1979) (other citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "310 N.C. 632", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2395675 ], "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "641", "parenthetical": "citing State v. Gibbs, 297 N.C. 410, 265 S.E. 2d 168 (1979) (other citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/310/0632-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 105-345", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(c)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "378 S.E.2d 196", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "dismissing the plaintiff's first appeal as interlocutory and later holding, after final judgment was entered, that the challenged order was void" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "93 N.C. App. 414", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8528064 ], "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "dismissing the plaintiff's first appeal as interlocutory and later holding, after final judgment was entered, that the challenged order was void" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/93/0414-01" ] }, { "cite": "360 N.C. 53", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3788265 ], "year": 2005, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/360/0053-01" ] }, { "cite": "608 S.E.2d 336", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "338" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "168 N.C. App. 515", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8470441 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "517" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/168/0515-01" ] }, { "cite": "733 S.E.2d 582", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2012, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "273 S.E.2d 434", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "301 N.C. 656", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8569949 ], "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/301/0656-01" ] }, { "cite": "293 S.E.2d 182", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "306 N.C. 324", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8568484 ], "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/306/0324-01" ] }, { "cite": "545 S.E.2d 243", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "246", "parenthetical": "\"denial of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not immediately appealable\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "143 N.C. App. 97", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11433311 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "100", "parenthetical": "\"denial of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not immediately appealable\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/143/0097-01" ] }, { "cite": "57 S.E.2d 377", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1950, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "381" }, { "page": "381" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "231 N.C. 357", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8629835 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1950, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "362" }, { "page": "362" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/231/0357-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 105-290", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(e)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 607, "char_count": 16904, "ocr_confidence": 0.675, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.2468811888260667 }, "sha256": "5dc5ed6da99afb2f22a29b7ad0dd053c05815b6f4c96139864bfd0e8bdc3cda2", "simhash": "1:86d9fcff42489520", "word_count": 2714 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:30:06.319137+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges McGEE and ERVIN concur." ], "parties": [ "In the Matter of the Appeal of Becky King Properties, LLC from the decision of the Brunswick County Board of Equalization and Review Concerning the Valuation and Taxation of Real Property for Tax Year 2012 In the Matter of the Appeal of Coastal Communities at Seawatch, LLC from the decision of the Brunswick County Board of Equalization and Review Concerning the Valuation and Taxation of Real Property for Tax Year 2012 In the Matter of the Appeal of Coastal Communities at Ocean Ridge Plantation, LLC from the Decision of the Brunswick County Board of Equalization and Review Concerning the Valuation and Taxation of Real Property for Tax Year 2012 In the Matter of the Appeal of Coastal Communities Development, LLC from the decision of the Brunswick County Board of Equalization and Review Concerning the Valuation and Taxation of Real Property for Tax Year 2012 In the Matter of the Appeal of Coastal Development & Realty Builder, LLC from the decision of the Brunswick County Board of Equalization and Review Concerning the Valuation and Taxation of Real Property for Tax Year 2012 In the Matter of the Appeal of Drewmark Investments, LLC from the decision of the Brunswick County Board of Equalization and Review Concerning the Valuation and Taxation of Real Property for Tax Year 2012 In the Matter of the Appeal of Eagle Point, LLC from the decision of the Brunswick County Board of Equalization and Review Concerning the Valuation and Taxation of Real Property for Tax Year 2012 In the Matter of the Appeal of Eastern Carolina\u2019s Construction & Development, LLC from the decision of the Brunswick County Board of Equalization & Review Concerning the Valuation and Taxation of Real Property for Tax Year 2012 In the Matter of the Appeal of Georgetown Land & Timber, LLC from the decision of the Brunswick County Board of Equalization and Review Concerning the Valuation and Taxation of Real Property for Tax Year 2012 In the Matter of the Appeal of MAS Properties, LLC from the decision of the Brunswick County Board of Equalization and Review Concerning the Valuation and Taxation of Real Property for Tax Year 2012 In the Matter of the Appeal of McDonald Development Associates, LLC from the decision of the Brunswick County Board of Equalization and Review Concerning the Valuation and Taxation of Real Property for Tax Year 2012 In the Matter of the Appeal of Ocean Isle Palms, LLC from the decision of the Brunswick County Board of Equalization and Review Concerning the Valuation and Taxation of Real Property for Tax Year 2012 In the Matter of the Appeal of Pointe West, LLC from the decision of the Brunswick County Board of Equalization and Review Concerning the Valuation and Taxation of Real Property for Tax Year 2012 In the Matter of the Appeal of Remuda Run, LLC from the decision of the Brunswick County Board of Equalization and Review Concerning the Valuation and Taxation of Real Property for Tax Year 2012 In the Matter of the Appeal of Rivers Edge Golf Club & Plantation, LLC from the decision of the Brunswick County Board of Equalization and Review Concerning the Valuation and Taxation of Real Property for Tax Year 2012 In the Matter of the Appeal of SeaScape at Holden Plantation, LLC from the decision of the Brunswick County Board of Equalization and Review Concerning the Valuation and Taxation of Real Property for Tax Year 2012 In the Matter of the Appeal of Seawatch at Sunset Harbor, LLC from the decision of the Brunswick County Board of Equalization and Review Concerning the Valuation and Taxation of Real Property for Tax Year 2012 In the Matter of the Appeal of William E. Saunders Jr., Trustee from the decision of the Brunswick County Board of Equalization and Review Concerning the Valuation and Taxation of Real Property for Tax Year 2012" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "STEELMAN, Judge.\nWhere the County appeals from interlocutory orders of the Property Tax Commission, its appeals must be dismissed. Appeals from the Commission are not subject to a \u201csubstantial right\u201d exception, and the County\u2019s contentions that the Commission lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter the orders, and that the orders are therefore void, do not create a right to immediate review of the orders.\nI. Factual and Procedural Background\nIn 2012 appellant Brunswick County (\u201cCounty\u201d) conducted a revaluation of real property in the county for purposes of establishing ad valorem property tax assessments. Following the revaluation, taxpayers Becky King Properties, LLC; Coastal Communities at Seawatch, LLC; Coastal Communities at Ocean Ridge Plantation, LLC; Coastal Communities Development, LLC; Coastal Development & Realty Builder, LLC; Drewmark Investments, LLC; Eagle Point, LLC; Eastern Carolina\u2019s Construction & Development, LLC; Georgetown Land & Timber, LLC; MAS Properties, LLC; McDonald Development Associates, LLC; Ocean Isle Palms, LLC; Pointe West, LLC; Remuda Run, LLC; Rivers Edge Golf Club & Plantation, LLC; SeaScape at Holden Plantation, LLC; Seawatch at Sunset Harbor, LLC; and William E. Saunders Jr., Trustee (collectively, Taxpayers) appealed to the Brunswick County Board of Equalization and Review. In early July 2012 the Board of Equalization and Review mailed decisions to Taxpayers, denying their appeals. On 1 August 2012 Taxpayers sent notices of appeal to the North Carolina Property Tax Commission (\u201cCommission\u201d) via United Parcel Service Next Day Air. Commission received Taxpayers\u2019 notices of appeal on 2 August 2012.\nOn 13 August 2012 County filed motions to dismiss Taxpayers\u2019 appeals to Commission for failure to file their appeals in a timely manner. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 105-290(e) requires that a notice of appeal \u201cfrom a board of equalization and review shall be filed with the Property Tax Commission within 30 days after the date the board mailed a notice of its decision to the property owner.\u201d County asserted that Taxpayers filed their notices of appeal on the 31st day and thus failed to comply with the 30 day requirement. On 19 October 2012 Commission conducted a hearing on County\u2019s motions to dismiss. At the end of the hearing, Commission indicated that it would grant County\u2019s motions for dismissal. The record reflects that on 14 December 2012 Commission entered an order granting County\u2019s motion to dismiss the appeal of Becky King Properties. Becky King Properties filed a notice of appeal and exceptions on 11 January 2013.\nOn 17 May 2013 Commission filed orders reversing its October 2012 dismissal of Taxpayers\u2019 appeals to Commission. The orders are identical except for the names of the taxpayers, and state that:\nDuring the March 12, 2013 Administrative Session of Hearings, the Property Tax Commission (\u201cCommission\u201d), on its own motion, reviewed the dismissal of this appeal, and for good cause shown, now deems it appropriate to deny Brunswick County\u2019s motion to dismiss the matter. It is therefore ordered and decreed that Brunswick County\u2019s motion to dismiss this appeal is denied in all respects.\nOn 14 June 2013 County filed notices of appeal from Commission\u2019s orders reversing its earlier rulings and denying County\u2019s motions to dismiss Taxpayers\u2019 appeals to Commission.\nOn 7 November 2013 the North Myrtle Liquidating Trust (\u201cTrust\u201d) filed a motion in this Court seeking to substitute itself for certain taxpayers for purposes of this appeal. Trust asserted that five taxpayers (Coastal Communities at Ocean Ridge Plantation, LLC; Drewmark Investments, LLC; Eagle Point, LLC; McDonald Development Associates, LLC; and Ocean Isle Palms, LLC) had conveyed all of their properties to Trust, and that seven other taxpayers (Becky King Properties, LLC; Coastal Communities at Seawatch, LLC; Coastal Communities Development, LLC; Eastern Carolina\u2019s Construction & Development, LLC; MAS Properties, LLC; Rivers Edge Golf Club & Plantation, LLC; and Seawatch at Sunset Harbor, LLC) had conveyed some but not all of their properties to Trust. On 22 November 2013 Trust\u2019s motion was allowed. On 9 December 2013 Trust filed a motion for dismissal of its appeal with respect to properties owned by Trust. The motion asserted that Trust and County had \u201cresolved their dispute by settlement\u201d with regard to properties owned by Trust, and that as \u201ca condition of settlement, the Trust agreed to dismiss its challenge to the County\u2019s 2012 tax assessments of the Trust properties\u201d and that County had \u201cagreed to dismiss [its] appeal as it concerns the Trust Properties.\u201d This motion was granted on 11 December 2013, so the present appeal concerns only the properties that were not transferred to Trust.\nII. Interlocutory Appeal\nWe first address Taxpayers\u2019 argument that County\u2019s appeal should be dismissed as interlocutory. \u201cAn interlocutory order is one made during the pendency of an action, which does not dispose of the case, but leaves it for further action by the trial court in order to settle and determine the entire controversy.\u201d Veazey v. Durham, 231 N.C. 357, 362, 57 S.E.2d 377, 381 (1950). Commission\u2019s orders denying County\u2019s motions to dismiss Taxpayers\u2019 appeals to Commission are interlocutory, as Taxpayers\u2019 challenges to County\u2019s revaluation of their properties remain unresolved.\nAppeal from an order of Commission to this Court is governed by N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7A-29(a), which provides that \u201c[fjrom any final order or decision of... the Property Tax Commission under G.S. 105-290 and G.S. 105-342 ... appeal as of right lies directly to the Court of Appeals.\u201d The statute expressly limits the right of appeal to appeals from a \u201cfinal order or decision.\u201d Moreover, N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7A-29 does not make an exception for interlocutory orders in which a substantial right of the appellant is in jeopardy. Therefore, we do not consider County\u2019s argument that it is entitled to immediate review to protect its \u201csubstantial right\u201d to avoid the waste of \u201csignificant resources.\u201d\nCounty asserts that after Taxpayers entered notices of appeal, Commission was divested of jurisdiction and lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter the subsequent orders reversing its earlier dismissal of Taxpayers\u2019 appeals. However, an appellant does not obtain a right to immediate review of an interlocutory order simply by arguing that the tribunal lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter the interlocu-toiy order. Data Gen. Corp. v. Cty. of Durham, 143 N.C. App. 97, 100, 545 S.E.2d 243, 246 (2001) (\u201cdenial of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not immediately appealable\u201d) (citing Teachy v. Coble Dairies, Inc., 306 N.C. 324, 293 S.E.2d 182 (1982)).\nCounty also attempts to draw a distinction between appeals from the denial of a motion to dismiss based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction and an appeal based on a party\u2019s assertion that an order was \u201cvoid.\u201d However, we agree with Taxpayers that \u201c[t]here is no such distinction\u201d given that \u201ca trial tribunal order issued without subject-matter jurisdiction is void \u2014 that\u2019s the very effect of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and the most common reason for an order being void.\u201d\nCounty argues that \u201c[v]oid orders are not analyzed as \u2018final\u2019 or \u2018interlocutory\u2019 on appeal[.]\u201d None of the cases that County cites in support of this position hold that an unappealable interlocutory order will be reviewed by this Court merely because an appellant raises the argument that the underlying order was \u201cvoid. \u201d For example, County relies heavily upon Stroupe v. Stroupe, 301 N.C. 656, 273 S.E.2d 434 (1981), and asserts that in Stroupe, our Supreme Court \u201cnoted that the judgment appealed from was interlocutory, then analyzed whether a direct or indirect attack was permissible without requiring the order to be final\u201d and that Stroupe found \u201can interlocutory order void on appeal.\u201d However, although the order at issue in Stroupe had been interlocutory when it was originally entered, the appeal was taken from a final judgment. Stroupe did not address the appeal from an interlocutory order, and did not hold that if a party asserts that an order is void, this argument confers upon the party a right of immediate review of an interlocutory order. Similarly, County contends that in In re Officials of Kill Devil Hills Police Dep\u2019t, _ N.C. App. _, 733 S.E.2d 582 (2012), this Court \u201cvacatfed an] interlocutory order . . . without requiring the order to have been final.\u201d However, as discussed above, an \u201cinterlocutory order is one made during the pendency of an action].]\u201d Veazey, 231 N.C. at 362, 57 S.E.2d at 381. In Kill Devil Hills, the trial court had entered an order sua sponte, although there was no case before it. Therefore, the order was not \u201cinterlocutory\u201d because there was no action during the \u201cpendency\u201d of which an order could be entered. County has also quoted selected excerpts from a number of other cases, discussing the general nature of a void order. None of the cited cases suggest that an immediate appeal lies from an interlocutory order based on the fact that the appellant has contended the challenged order was void. Moreover, we have previously dismissed interlocutory appeals in which the appellant argued that the trial court\u2019s order was void. See Johnson v. Lucas, 168 N.C. App. 515, 517, 608 S.E.2d 336, 338 (noting that the appellant had raised several issues, including whether \u201cthe prior judgment was void\u201d but holding that \u201cin light of our conclusion that this appeal should be dismissed as interlocutory, we do not reach any of the remaining issues\u201d), aff\u2019d per curium, 360 N.C. 53, 619 S.E.2d 502 (2005), and Rivenbark v. Southmark Corp., 93 N.C. App. 414, 378 S.E.2d 196 (1989) (dismissing the plaintiff\u2019s first appeal as interlocutory and later holding, after final judgment was entered, that the challenged order was void).\nThe issue before us is not whether County is correct that Commission lacked subject matter jurisdiction and thus entered void orders, or whether Taxpayers are correct that Commission had authority to enter the challenged orders under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 105-345(c). Nor does the resolution of this case depend upon the extent of this Court\u2019s \u201cinherent authority to set aside void orders,\u201d the right to collaterally attack a void order, or the legal effect of the determination that an order is void. Rather, the question is whether the validity of Commission\u2019s orders - which are clearly interlocutory - is properly before us at this time. We hold that County has attempted to appeal from interlocutory orders that are not subject to immediate review, that the \u201csubstantial right\u201d exception is not applicable to an appeal from Commission, and that County\u2019s argument that Commission\u2019s orders are void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction does not confer a right of immediate appeal on County.\nThis appeal must be dismissed.\nDISMISSED.\nJudges McGEE and ERVIN concur.\n. The parties stipulate that Commission also entered orders dismissing the appeals of the other seventeen taxpayers, and that these taxpayers also filed notices of appeal and exceptions. These orders and notices of appeal are not to be found in the record. As a result, we have no way to determine whether these taxpayers filed timely notices of appeal to this Court. Nor does the record include any documents indicating whether the appeals of any taxpayers (other than those whose properties were later purchased by the North Myrtle Liquidating Trust) were perfected or whether any of these taxpayers sought to withdraw their appeals. \u201c[T]his Court is bound on appeal by the record on appeal as certified and can judicially know only what appears in it.\u201d State v. Lawson, 310 N.C. 632, 641, 314 S.E.2d 493, 499 (1984) (citing State v. Gibbs, 297 N.C. 410, 265 S.E. 2d 168 (1979) (other citations omitted). However, we have resolved this case based on the interlocutory nature of County\u2019s appeal, despite these omissions from the record.\n. If an interlocutory appeal were subject to immediate review whenever an appellant asserted that the interlocutory order was \u201cvoid,\u201d this exception would be likely to swallow the rule.", "type": "majority", "author": "STEELMAN, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Elaine Jordan for taxpayer-appellees.", "Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP, by Charles C. Meeker and Jamie S. Schwedler and Office of County Attorney, by Bryan W. Battonfor defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "In the Matter of the Appeal of Becky King Properties, LLC from the decision of the Brunswick County Board of Equalization and Review Concerning the Valuation and Taxation of Real Property for Tax Year 2012 In the Matter of the Appeal of Coastal Communities at Seawatch, LLC from the decision of the Brunswick County Board of Equalization and Review Concerning the Valuation and Taxation of Real Property for Tax Year 2012 In the Matter of the Appeal of Coastal Communities at Ocean Ridge Plantation, LLC from the Decision of the Brunswick County Board of Equalization and Review Concerning the Valuation and Taxation of Real Property for Tax Year 2012 In the Matter of the Appeal of Coastal Communities Development, LLC from the decision of the Brunswick County Board of Equalization and Review Concerning the Valuation and Taxation of Real Property for Tax Year 2012 In the Matter of the Appeal of Coastal Development & Realty Builder, LLC from the decision of the Brunswick County Board of Equalization and Review Concerning the Valuation and Taxation of Real Property for Tax Year 2012 In the Matter of the Appeal of Drewmark Investments, LLC from the decision of the Brunswick County Board of Equalization and Review Concerning the Valuation and Taxation of Real Property for Tax Year 2012 In the Matter of the Appeal of Eagle Point, LLC from the decision of the Brunswick County Board of Equalization and Review Concerning the Valuation and Taxation of Real Property for Tax Year 2012 In the Matter of the Appeal of Eastern Carolina\u2019s Construction & Development, LLC from the decision of the Brunswick County Board of Equalization & Review Concerning the Valuation and Taxation of Real Property for Tax Year 2012 In the Matter of the Appeal of Georgetown Land & Timber, LLC from the decision of the Brunswick County Board of Equalization and Review Concerning the Valuation and Taxation of Real Property for Tax Year 2012 In the Matter of the Appeal of MAS Properties, LLC from the decision of the Brunswick County Board of Equalization and Review Concerning the Valuation and Taxation of Real Property for Tax Year 2012 In the Matter of the Appeal of McDonald Development Associates, LLC from the decision of the Brunswick County Board of Equalization and Review Concerning the Valuation and Taxation of Real Property for Tax Year 2012 In the Matter of the Appeal of Ocean Isle Palms, LLC from the decision of the Brunswick County Board of Equalization and Review Concerning the Valuation and Taxation of Real Property for Tax Year 2012 In the Matter of the Appeal of Pointe West, LLC from the decision of the Brunswick County Board of Equalization and Review Concerning the Valuation and Taxation of Real Property for Tax Year 2012 In the Matter of the Appeal of Remuda Run, LLC from the decision of the Brunswick County Board of Equalization and Review Concerning the Valuation and Taxation of Real Property for Tax Year 2012 In the Matter of the Appeal of Rivers Edge Golf Club & Plantation, LLC from the decision of the Brunswick County Board of Equalization and Review Concerning the Valuation and Taxation of Real Property for Tax Year 2012 In the Matter of the Appeal of SeaScape at Holden Plantation, LLC from the decision of the Brunswick County Board of Equalization and Review Concerning the Valuation and Taxation of Real Property for Tax Year 2012 In the Matter of the Appeal of Seawatch at Sunset Harbor, LLC from the decision of the Brunswick County Board of Equalization and Review Concerning the Valuation and Taxation of Real Property for Tax Year 2012 In the Matter of the Appeal of William E. Saunders Jr., Trustee from the decision of the Brunswick County Board of Equalization and Review Concerning the Valuation and Taxation of Real Property for Tax Year 2012\nNo. COA 13-1107\nFiled 1 July 2014\nAppeal and Error\u2014interlocutory orders and appeals\u2014Property Tax Commission\u2014no substantial right exception\u2014subject matter jurisdiction\nThe County\u2019s appeal from interlocutory orders of the Property Tax Commission (Commission) were dismissed. Appeals from the Commission axe not subject to a \u201csubstantial right\u201d exception, and the County\u2019s contentions that the Commission lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter the orders, and that the orders were therefore void, did not create a right to immediate review of the orders.\nAppeal by Brunswick County from orders entered by the Property Tax Commission on 17 May 2013. Heard in the Court of Appeals 4 March 2014.\nElaine Jordan for taxpayer-appellees.\nParker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP, by Charles C. Meeker and Jamie S. Schwedler and Office of County Attorney, by Bryan W. Battonfor defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0699-01", "first_page_order": 709, "last_page_order": 715 }