{
  "id": 8527552,
  "name": "JUNIE AUSTIN DAY; PEARL AUSTIN PRESNELL; MARY AUSTIN ANDERSON and DORIS AUSTIN KIRBY v. SADIE HUFFMAN COFFEY, Administratix of the Estate of J. Grant Huffman; SADIE HUFFMAN COFFEY and husband, JACK COFFEY; THOMAS JACK HUFFMAN and wife, ANN C. HUFFMAN",
  "name_abbreviation": "Day v. Coffey",
  "decision_date": "1984-05-15",
  "docket_number": "No. 8325SC571",
  "first_page": "509",
  "last_page": "511",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "68 N.C. App. 509"
    }
  ],
  "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": "225 S.E. 2d 797",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "separation of underlying claim and punitive damage claim made order appealable"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "290 N.C. 118",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560682
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "separation of underlying claim and punitive damage claim made order appealable"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/290/0118-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "268 S.E. 2d 271",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "48 N.C. App. 180",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8549607
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/48/0180-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 75-1.1",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "532 F. 2d 950",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        10594066
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/532/0950-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "525 F. 2d 688",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1095045
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/525/0688-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "443 F. 2d 401",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        773907
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/443/0401-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "133 S.E. 2d 150",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1963,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "260 N.C. 539",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8575501
      ],
      "year": 1963,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/260/0539-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "252 S.E. 2d 231",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "40 N.C. App. 227",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8549543
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/40/0227-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 366,
    "char_count": 4800,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.824,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.1937869685226118e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7742681137008374
    },
    "sha256": "c821547bc5e8ae32e3aa8cfc74eb2bb3b1f558daa8c04f3a20f834ecaa38166f",
    "simhash": "1:20a94172f47b96d0",
    "word_count": 773
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:24:21.303361+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Webb and EAGLES concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "JUNIE AUSTIN DAY; PEARL AUSTIN PRESNELL; MARY AUSTIN ANDERSON and DORIS AUSTIN KIRBY v. SADIE HUFFMAN COFFEY, Adminis-tratix of the Estate of J. Grant Huffman; SADIE HUFFMAN COFFEY and husband, JACK COFFEY; THOMAS JACK HUFFMAN and wife, ANN C. HUFFMAN"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BECTON, Judge.\nPlaintiffs attempt to appeal from an order dismissing their complaint. Since the court granted plaintiffs leave to amend, however, the purported appeal is interlocutory, and we therefore dismiss.\nThe complaint alleged that plaintiff Day\u2019s interest in various tracts of land was fraudulently conveyed to defendants\u2019 predecessors in title. Plaintiffs sought removal of the cloud on their alleged title or damages for the lost value of the land, as well as lost rents and timber profits. They alleged in addition damage re-suiting from violations of the United States Constitution, the Constitution of North Carolina, federal civil rights law, and North Carolina unfair trade practices law. Defendants moved to dismiss all claims pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 12(b)(6) (1983). The court granted the motion as to the constitutional and statutory claims. It also granted it as to the cloud on title and fraud claims, but allowed plaintiffs leave to amend their Complaint within thirty days. The order instructed plaintiffs to file separate complaints identifying more specifically the land involved, the nature of plaintiffs\u2019 interest(s) therein, and the manner in which defendants allegedly perpetrated the frauds. Rather than file amended complaints, plaintiffs gave notice of appeal.\nWe confront, apparently for the first time under our Rules of Civil Procedure, the question of the appealability by plaintiffs of an order which dismissed their complaint but allowed leave to amend. It is established under our Rules of Civil Procedure that orders allowing amendments cannot be appealed by the opposing party. O\u2019Neill v. Southern Nat\u2019l Bank, 40 N.C. App. 227, 252 S.E. 2d 231 (1979); see also Williams v. Denning, 260 N.C. 539, 133 S.E. 2d 150 (1963). Can the party be allowed to amend appeal?\nDecisions of the federal courts under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have uniformly held that when an action is dismissed with leave to amend, the proceeding is still pending and an appeal is interlocutory. See Kozemchak v. Ukrainian Orthodox Church, 443 F. 2d 401 (2d Cir. 1971); Tietz v. Local 10, Int\u2019l Ass\u2019n of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, 525 F. 2d 688 (8th Cir. 1975); Borelli v. City of Reading, 532 F. 2d 950 (3d Cir. 1976). The federal decisions rely at least in part on Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which defines a judgment as, among other things, a ruling \u201cthat all relief shall be denied.\u201d See Tietz v. Local 10. Our rules contain the same language. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 58 (1983). When the court allows amendment, relief in the trial court has not been entirely denied and appeal is premature. Our long-established policy forbidding fragmentary interlocutory appeals also supports application of the federal rule. Plaintiffs have an opportunity to correct the deficiency in the trial court without affecting their cause of action. Prosecuting an appeal, when simple and economical corrective measures might be taken without prejudice in the trial court, is exactly the sort of wasteful procedure which our appellate courts have consistently disapproved. We therefore hold that plaintiffs\u2019 attempted appeal is interlocutory and dismiss it forthwith.\nThe fact that plaintiffs have alleged unfair trade practices does not affect this result. Assuming without deciding that such a claim is proper, the action would lie, if at all, against Harve Austin, the perpetrator of the fraud, or his estate. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 75-1.1, -16 (1981); N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 28A-18-1 (1976); see Ellis v. Smith-Broadhurst, Inc., 48 N.C. App. 180, 268 S.E. 2d 271 (1980). Plaintiffs have not named Harve Austin or his estate as a defendant. Oestreicher v. American Nat\u2019l Stores, Inc., 290 N.C. 118, 225 S.E. 2d 797 (1976) (separation of underlying claim and punitive damage claim made order appealable), therefore does not apply.\nAppeal dismissed.\nJudges Webb and EAGLES concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BECTON, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. P. Burkhimer for plaintiff appellants.",
      "Wilson, Palmer & Cannon, P.A., by Hugh M. Wilson and John S. Arrowood, and Beverly T. Beal, P.A., by Christopher L. Beal, for defendant appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "JUNIE AUSTIN DAY; PEARL AUSTIN PRESNELL; MARY AUSTIN ANDERSON and DORIS AUSTIN KIRBY v. SADIE HUFFMAN COFFEY, Adminis-tratix of the Estate of J. Grant Huffman; SADIE HUFFMAN COFFEY and husband, JACK COFFEY; THOMAS JACK HUFFMAN and wife, ANN C. HUFFMAN\nNo. 8325SC571\n(Filed 15 May 1984)\nAppeal and Error \u00a7 6.6\u2014 order dismissing complaint with leave to amend \u2014 premature appeal\nPurported appeal by plaintiffs from an order which dismissed their complaint but allowed leave to amend was interlocutory and premature.\nAPPEAL by plaintiffs from Morgan, Judge. Order entered 18 April 1983 in Superior Court, Caldwell County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 24 April 1984.\nW. P. Burkhimer for plaintiff appellants.\nWilson, Palmer & Cannon, P.A., by Hugh M. Wilson and John S. Arrowood, and Beverly T. Beal, P.A., by Christopher L. Beal, for defendant appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0509-01",
  "first_page_order": 541,
  "last_page_order": 543
}