{ "id": 8520677, "name": "DAVID H. HOWELL, JR., Plaintiff v. DOROTHY MARIE HOWELL, Defendant, and HORACE M. DUBOSE, III, Intervenor", "name_abbreviation": "Howell v. Howell", "decision_date": "1988-03-01", "docket_number": "No. 8727DC898", "first_page": "115", "last_page": "118", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "89 N.C. App. 115" } ], "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": "171 S.E. 92", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1933, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "205 N.C. 309", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8628353 ], "year": 1933, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/205/0309-01" ] }, { "cite": "247 S.E. 2d 274", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "38 N.C. App. 81", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8552009 ], "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/38/0081-01" ] }, { "cite": "364 S.E. 2d 918", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "321 N.C. 471", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2568512, 2572119, 2572624, 2569747, 2566199 ], "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/321/0471-05", "/nc/321/0471-02", "/nc/321/0471-01", "/nc/321/0471-04", "/nc/321/0471-03" ] }, { "cite": "361 S.E. 2d 115", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "87 N.C. App. 386", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8358435 ], "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/87/0386-01" ] }, { "cite": "251 S.E. 2d 468", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "296 N.C. 410", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8566628, 8566481, 8566586, 8566555, 8566526 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/296/0410-05", "/nc/296/0410-01", "/nc/296/0410-04", "/nc/296/0410-03", "/nc/296/0410-02" ] }, { "cite": "247 S.E. 2d 305", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "309" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "38 N.C. App. 61", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8551878 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "67" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/38/0061-01" ] }, { "cite": "258 S.E. 2d 829", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "43 N.C. App. 395", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8552240 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/43/0395-01" ] }, { "cite": "270 S.E. 2d 431", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "434" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "301 N.C. 205", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564716 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "210" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/301/0205-01" ] }, { "cite": "337 S.E. 2d 856", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "315 N.C. 183", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4714861, 4717589, 4718136, 4718201, 4717178 ], "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/315/0183-03", "/nc/315/0183-05", "/nc/315/0183-02", "/nc/315/0183-04", "/nc/315/0183-01" ] }, { "cite": "331 S.E. 2d 217", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "75 N.C. App. 654", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526659 ], "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/75/0654-01" ] }, { "cite": "240 S.E. 2d 338", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "294 N.C. 200", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8572343 ], "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/294/0200-01" ] }, { "cite": "307 S.E. 2d 390", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "64 N.C. App. 370", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526893 ], "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/64/0370-01" ] }, { "cite": "59 S.E. 2d 429", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1950, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "232 N.C. 744", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "year": 1950, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "57 S.E. 2d 377", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1950, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "381" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "231 N.C. 357", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8629835 ], "year": 1950, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "362" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/231/0357-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 433, "char_count": 7777, "ocr_confidence": 0.835, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.212363783342362e-08, "percentile": 0.4766615737056485 }, "sha256": "2bc4b07b294c27d743de81e207de079bbfa4521a52d404d1ed4b8ff1893f6619", "simhash": "1:1ff8cfe702ee2568", "word_count": 1330 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:39:00.818604+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Chief Judge Hedrick and Judge Becton concur." ], "parties": [ "DAVID H. HOWELL, JR., Plaintiff v. DOROTHY MARIE HOWELL, Defendant, and HORACE M. DUBOSE, III, Intervenor" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "SMITH, Judge.\nAppellant brings forward several assignments of error and makes three basic arguments in support of his position that the trial court should be reversed. First, he contends the trial court erred by denying his application for attorney\u2019s fees and expenses. By his second argument, he asserts the trial court erred by striking his notice of claim of an attorney\u2019s charging lien. Third, he contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to intervene as of right. In an assignment of error relating to a procedural matter, he assigns error to the trial court\u2019s decision to include in the record on appeal the answers to certain requests for admissions filed after notice of appeal was given. We conclude the appeal is interlocutory and dismiss the appeal without addressing the assignments of error.\n\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 ... to settle and determine the entire controversy.\u201d Veazey v. Durham, 231 N.C. 357, 362, 57 S.E. 2d 377, 381, reh\u2019g denied, 232 N.C. 744, 59 S.E. 2d 429 (1950). Accord McKinney v. Royal Globe Insur. Co., 64 N.C. App. 370, 307 S.E. 2d 390 (1983). There is no right to appeal from an interlocutory order unless it affects a substantial right and will result in injury if not reviewed before final judgment. G.S. 1-277(a); G.S. 7A-27(d); Waters v. Personnel, Inc., 294 N.C. 200, 240 S.E. 2d 338 (1978). Accord Fraser v. Di Santi, 75 N.C. App. 654, 331 S.E. 2d 217, disc. rev. denied, 315 N.C. 183, 337 S.E. 2d 856 (1985). If appellant\u2019s rights \u201cwould be fully and adequately protected by an exception to the order that could then be assigned as error on appeal after final judgment,\u201d there is no right to an immediate appeal. Bailey v. Gooding, 301 N.C. 205, 210, 270 S.E. 2d 431, 434 (1980); Waters v. Personnel, Inc., supra.\nIn this case, the orders from which appellant seeks to appeal are interlocutory and do not affect a substantial right of appellant. The denial of attorney\u2019s fees under G.S. 50-16.4 was not a final order of the trial court. At the time appellant\u2019s motion was filed, there had been no determination that his client, defendant, was entitled to alimony pendente lite under G.S. 50-16.3. Thus, appellant was not yet entitled to attorney\u2019s fees under G.S. 50-16.4. The court did not refuse to make a determination whether or not appellant was entitled to attorney\u2019s fees but merely stated his claim was \u201cpremature.\u201d Appellant may appeal the denial of his motion after final judgment or may bring a separate lawsuit to collect fees. Thus, no substantial right of appellant is affected by our failure to entertain the interlocutory appeal on this issue.\nSimilarly, the ruling on the attorney\u2019s charging lien was not a final order. A charging lien is not available until there is a final judgment or decree to which the lien can attach. Dillon v. Consolidated Delivery, Inc., 43 N.C. App. 395, 258 S.E. 2d 829 (1979); Covington v. Rhodes, 38 N.C. App. 61, 247 S.E. 2d 305 (1978), disc, rev. denied, 296 N.C. 410, 251 S.E. 2d 468 (1979). The trial court noted that \u201cat this point in the proceedings\u201d a charging lien was not appropriate since no final judgment had been entered in the underlying divorce action. Thus, the order was interlocutory. Again, appellant may either appeal from a final order or bring a separate action to recover fees. Thus, his rights are protected despite our refusal to entertain the appeal on this issue. We note, however, that even after a final judgment in the divorce action appellant will not be entitled to an attorney\u2019s charging lien.\nThe charging lien is an equitable lien which gives an. attorney the right to recover his fees \u201cfrom a fund recovered by his aid.\u201d 7 Am. Jur. 2d, Attorneys at Law, Sec. 281. The charging lien attaches not to the cause of action, but to the judgment at the time it is rendered. Id. Sec 296. At the time when this purported charging lien would have attached, the time of judgment in favor of defendant[ ]. . . , the judgment was not a fund recovered by [appellant\u2019s] aid, as he had been discharged. [Appellant] was entitled to no interest in the fund.\nCovington v. Rhodes, 38 N.C. App. at 67, 247 S.E. 2d at 309. Accord Clerk of Superior Court of Guilford County v. Guilford Builders Supply Co., 87 N.C. App. 386, 361 S.E. 2d 115 (1987), disc. rev. denied, 321 N.C. 471, 364 S.E. 2d 918 (1988).\nThe denial of appellant\u2019s motion to intervene is also an interlocutory order. Although appellant has moved to intervene as of right, he is not entitled to do so. He has no statutory right of intervention. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 24(a)(1). Further, he is not entitled to intervene as of right under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 24(a)(2). Ellis v. Ellis, 38 N.C. App. 81, 247 S.E. 2d 274 (1978). There are three prerequisites to nonstatutory intervention as a matter of right: \u201c(1) an interest relating to the property or transaction; (2) practical impairment of the protection of that interest; and (3) inadequate representation of that interest by existing parties.\u201d Id. at 83, 247 S.E. 2d at 276. At best, appellant sought permissive intervention under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 24(b). The refusal to grant permissive intervention is an interlocutory order. Horne v. Home, 205 N.C. 309, 171 S.E. 92 (1933). As noted above, appellant may either bring a separate action regarding his fees or appeal from a final order. No substantial right is affected by our failure to consider the interlocutory appeal.\nAppeal dismissed.\nChief Judge Hedrick and Judge Becton concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "SMITH, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Richard L. Voorhees and Michael K. Hodnett for plaintiff-appellee.", "Joseph B. Roberts, III, and Horace M. DuBose, III, for inter-venor-appe llant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "DAVID H. HOWELL, JR., Plaintiff v. DOROTHY MARIE HOWELL, Defendant, and HORACE M. DUBOSE, III, Intervenor\nNo. 8727DC898\n(Filed 1 March 1988)\nAppeal and Error \u00a7 6.2\u2014 motion to intervene for attorney\u2019s fees \u2014 interlocutory appeal\nAn appeal from the denial of an attorney\u2019s motion for a charging lien and to intervene in the underlying domestic action was dismissed as interlocutory because there had been no determination that the client was entitled to alimony pendente lite at the time the motion was filed, so that appellant was not yet entitled to attorney\u2019s fees under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 50-16.4; a charging lien is not available until there is a final judgment or decree to which the lien can attach; appellant is not entitled to intervene as of right; and the refusal to grant permissive intervention is an interlocutory order.\nAppeal by movant, attorney Horace M. DuBose, III, from Langson (Larry), Judge. Orders entered 14 April 1987 and 27 April 1987 in District Court, GASTON County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 10 February 1988.\nDuBose represented defendant on her counterclaims for alimony, equitable distribution and attorney\u2019s fees in a divorce action filed by plaintiff. On behalf of defendant, DuBose moved for summary judgment on the issue of alimony pendente lite and for attorney\u2019s fees on 6 November 1986. On or about 13 November 1986, defendant discharged DuBose as her attorney and obtained other counsel. On 4 December 1986, DuBose filed a notice of claim of an attorney\u2019s charging lien, and on 9 January 1987, he filed a motion to intervene pursuant to G.S. 1A-1, Rule 24(a) for the purpose of protecting the charging lien and securing attorney\u2019s fees. On 14 April 1987, an order was entered for matters done in open court on 9 January 1987. The 14 April order denied DuBose\u2019s request for attorney\u2019s fees as premature and ordered the notice of claim of a charging lien stricken since no judgment or order had been entered to which a lien could attach. On 27 April 1987, DuBose\u2019s motion to intervene was denied. DuBose appeals.\nRichard L. Voorhees and Michael K. Hodnett for plaintiff-appellee.\nJoseph B. Roberts, III, and Horace M. DuBose, III, for inter-venor-appe llant." }, "file_name": "0115-01", "first_page_order": 143, "last_page_order": 146 }