{
  "id": 8550332,
  "name": "COY E. BECK, Administrator of the Estate of BLANCHE K. BECK, and COY E. BECK, Individually v. PAUL C. BECK, PEGGY B. MANESS, POLLY B. DOBY, BOBBY RAY BECK, and THOMASVILLE CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION",
  "name_abbreviation": "Beck v. Beck",
  "decision_date": "1976-02-04",
  "docket_number": "No. 7522SC790",
  "first_page": "488",
  "last_page": "490",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "28 N.C. App. 488"
    }
  ],
  "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": "211 S.E. 2d 458",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "24 N.C. App. 573",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8553254
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/24/0573-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "212 S.E. 2d 41",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "25 N.C. App. 18",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8549975
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/25/0018-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "210 S.E. 2d 492",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "24 N.C. App. 255",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8550000
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/24/0255-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 271,
    "char_count": 3830,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.52,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.770845263994211e-08,
      "percentile": 0.41401158909264596
    },
    "sha256": "c9c6a315b1e846bfe147dc9741def745835cbb8b1fb989f22606441ef9a17e6a",
    "simhash": "1:1a2b400965e52cc7",
    "word_count": 641
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:58:46.500479+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Britt and Hedrick concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "COY E. BECK, Administrator of the Estate of BLANCHE K. BECK, and COY E. BECK, Individually v. PAUL C. BECK, PEGGY B. MANESS, POLLY B. DOBY, BOBBY RAY BECK, and THOMASVILLE CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MARTIN, Judge.\nAlthough the parties have raised no question concerning the matter, we note that the judgment from which the plaintiff purports to appeal adjudicates the \u201crights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties\u201d and that it contains no determination that \u201cthere is no just reason for delay\u201d within the meaning of the language of Rule 54(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff\u2019s action against defendant Board of Education is still pending.\n\u201cUnder the North Carolina Rule, the trial court is granted the discretionary power to enter a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all the . . . parties, \u2018only if there is no just reason for delay and it is so determined in the judgment.\u2019 (Emphasis added.) By making the express determination in the judgment that there is \u2018no just reason for delay,\u2019 the trial judge in effect certifies that the judgment is a final judgment and subject to immediate appeal.\u201d Arnold v. Howard, 24 N.C. App. 255, 210 S.E. 2d 492 (1974).\nIn the absence of .such an express determination in the order, Rule 54(b) of the North. Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure makes \u201cany order or other form of decision, however designated, which adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties,\u201d interlocutory and not final. Leasing, Inc. v. Dan-Cleve Corp., 25 N.C. App. 18, 212 S.E. 2d 41 (1975) ; Raynor v. Mutual of Omaha, 24 N.C. App. 573, 211 S.E. 2d 458 (1975) ; Arnold v. Howard, supra.\nFor the reasons stated, the appeal is premature.\nAppeal dismissed.\nJudges Britt and Hedrick concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MARTIN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ottway Burton, for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Hoyle, Hoyle & Boone, by John T. Weigel, Jr., for defendant appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "COY E. BECK, Administrator of the Estate of BLANCHE K. BECK, and COY E. BECK, Individually v. PAUL C. BECK, PEGGY B. MANESS, POLLY B. DOBY, BOBBY RAY BECK, and THOMASVILLE CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION\nNo. 7522SC790\n(Filed 4 February 1976)\nAppeal and Error \u00a7 6; Rules of Civil Procedure \u00a7 54 \u2014 order not adjudicating all claims \u2014 premature appeal\nPurported appeal from an order which adjudicates the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties and contains no determination that there is no just reason for delay is premature and must be dismissed. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 54(b).\nAppeal by plaintiff from Godwin, Judge. Judgment entered 16 July 1975 in Superior Court, Davidson County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 22 January 1976.\nIn his complaint, plaintiff alleges that he was the husband of decedent, Blanche K. Beck, who died 8 June 1969 and he was named administrator of her estate. He had paid certain expenses of the estate with his own funds and was entitled to reimbursement from the estate.\nOn the 8th day of April 1965, the Thomasville City Board of Education executed a note payable to plaintiff and his wife for the purchase of real estate, with payment to be made in the years 1969 through 1973. After decedent\u2019s death, plaintiff and his children, the individual defendants herein, entered into a purported family settlement agreement, which provided that he would receive only a portion of the payments made by the Board of Education, while the children would receive the other portion. Plaintiff alleged this agreement was void because plaintiff was not represented by counsel when he signed the agreement and he did not realize its legal significance.\nPlaintiff\u2019s children denied that plaintiff had paid any estate expenses with his own funds. They allege that when the family settlement agreement was signed, plaintiff was represented by counsel and fully understood its legal effect.\nPlaintiff\u2019s children moved for summary judgment and motion for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that the complaint failed to state a claim for relief. The court granted the motion and plaintiff appeals to this Court.\nOttway Burton, for plaintiff appellant.\nHoyle, Hoyle & Boone, by John T. Weigel, Jr., for defendant appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0488-01",
  "first_page_order": 516,
  "last_page_order": 518
}