{
  "id": 8525247,
  "name": "FREDERICK WILLIAM BRAUN v. RICHARD W. GRUNDMAN",
  "name_abbreviation": "Braun v. Grundman",
  "decision_date": "1983-07-19",
  "docket_number": "No. 8224DC792",
  "first_page": "387",
  "last_page": "389",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "63 N.C. App. 387"
    }
  ],
  "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": "261 S.E. 2d 36",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "44 N.C. App. 308",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8552443
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/44/0308-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "35 S.E. 2d 422",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1945,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "225 N.C. 472",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8611258
      ],
      "year": 1945,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/225/0472-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "265 S.E. 2d 484",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "46 N.C. App. 622",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8552598
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/46/0622-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "270 S.E. 2d 431",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "301 N.C. 205",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8564716
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/301/0205-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 255,
    "char_count": 3264,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.803,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.168668855370785e-08,
      "percentile": 0.42938989879332734
    },
    "sha256": "99aebafb1bfde3df5603957f13dc2c8f2bcf8b699075cdf20de80e8f0694f9f1",
    "simhash": "1:47a656c534a9b4f7",
    "word_count": 543
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:55:10.514065+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Whichard and Johnson concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "FREDERICK WILLIAM BRAUN v. RICHARD W. GRUNDMAN"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "EAGLES, Judge.\nPlaintiff purports to appeal from an order setting aside a judgment as having been entered upon surprise and excusable neglect. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 60(b)(1). Appeals from such orders must be dismissed as interlocutory. Bailey v. Gooding, 301 N.C. 205, 270 S.E. 2d 431 (1980); Metcalf v. Palmer, 46 N.C. App. 622, 265 S.E. 2d 484 (1980).\nAlthough we need not here address the propriety of the trial court\u2019s action in setting aside the judgment on the grounds of mistake, inadvertence, surprise and excusable neglect, we note that a party is not \u201csurprised\u201d merely when he is alarmed by an action taken by the court, nor merely when he has an erroneous view of the law. Crissman v. Palmer, 225 N.C. 472, 35 S.E. 2d 422 (1945); Endsley v. Supply Corp., 44 N.C. App. 308, 261 S.E. 2d 36 (1979). Furthermore, a party\u2019s voluntary action may estop him from seeking relief from a judgment on the grounds of mistake or excusable neglect. Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure: Civil \u00a7 2858. A party who makes an informed choice as to a particular course of action will not be relieved of the consequences when it subsequently develops that the choice was unfortunate. 7 Moore's Federal Practice \u00a7 60.22[2].\nAppeal dismissed.\nJudges Whichard and Johnson concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "EAGLES, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Eggers & Eggers, by Stacy C. Eggers, III, for plaintiff-appellant.",
      "James M. Deal, Jr., for defendant-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "FREDERICK WILLIAM BRAUN v. RICHARD W. GRUNDMAN\nNo. 8224DC792\n(Filed 19 July 1983)\nAppeal and Error \u00a7 6.2\u2014 order setting aside judgment upon surprise and neglect \u2014appeal interlocutory\nAn appeal from an order setting aside a judgment as having been entered upon surprise and excusable neglect must be dismissed as interlocutory. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 60(b)(1).\nAPPEAL by plaintiff from Lyerly, Judge. Order entered 19 March 1982 in District Court, WATAUGA County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 18 May 1983.\nOn 3 August 1981 plaintiff instituted an action against defendant for $800.00 allegedly due him on an account. At a hearing before Magistrate Atita G. Norris on 13 August 1981 plaintiff was awarded $710.00 plus interest. Neither party was represented by counsel at the hearing.\nDefendant appealed that decision and a de novo trial was held in District Court on 2 November 1981. Again, the parties chose not to be represented by counsel. During the trial the court ruled inadmissibl\u00e9 an unsworn written statement which defendant attempted to present into evidence. On the basis of the admissible evidence presented by both parties, the court awarded plaintiff $750.00 plus interest.\nOn 12 January 1982 defendant filed a motion to set aside the 2 November 1981 judgment on the basis of mistake, inadvertence, surprise and excusable neglect. Defendant\u2019s motion asserted that he had not been represented by counsel at the trial de novo and that he had been prevented from introducing certain evidence because of his lack of legal knowledge. He also claimed that the magistrate had led defendant \u201cto believe that he would not need an attorney to present this defense\u201d in district court.\nAfter making findings of fact, Judge Lyerly concluded as a matter of law that the judgment of 2 November 1981 should be set aside and that a new trial be scheduled. From this order plaintiff appealed.\nEggers & Eggers, by Stacy C. Eggers, III, for plaintiff-appellant.\nJames M. Deal, Jr., for defendant-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0387-01",
  "first_page_order": 419,
  "last_page_order": 421
}
