{
  "id": 1659672,
  "name": "NARESH K. FARMAH and SURJEET K. FARMAH v. RAM L. FARMAH and SHEELA DEVI FARMAH",
  "name_abbreviation": "Farmah v. Farmah",
  "decision_date": "1998-07-09",
  "docket_number": "No. 280PA97",
  "first_page": "586",
  "last_page": "588",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "348 N.C. 586"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "484 S.E.2d 96",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1997,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "126 N.C. App. 210",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11709609
      ],
      "year": 1997,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/126/0210-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "200 S.E.2d 12",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "284 N.C. 242",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560919
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/284/0242-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "374 S.E.2d 394",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "397",
          "parenthetical": "citing Housing Authority v. Farabee, 284 N.C. 242, 200 S.E.2d 12 (1973)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "323 N.C. 591",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2562923
      ],
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "594",
          "parenthetical": "citing Housing Authority v. Farabee, 284 N.C. 242, 200 S.E.2d 12 (1973)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/323/0591-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "484 S.E.2d 96",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "97"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "126 N.C. App. 210",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11709609
      ],
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "211-212"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/126/0210-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 267,
    "char_count": 4535,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.76,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.0011153170616546e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3140405096976696
    },
    "sha256": "68f8e0733b3faed003f2ad7b95556471042a35e38100c120aa8b70729c6df054",
    "simhash": "1:0557b3639b49a1fa",
    "word_count": 741
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:11:06.764212+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "NARESH K. FARMAH and SURJEET K. FARMAH v. RAM L. FARMAH and SHEELA DEVI FARMAH"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "FRYE, Justice.\nWe allowed defendants\u2019 petition for discretionary review in order to consider the following two questions:\nI. Did the trial court err in converting the plaintiffs\u2019 equitable interest in real property into a money judgment against the defendants?\nII. Did the trial court err in assessing interest on the judgment from 26 August 1988, rather than from 2 February 1993, the date the action was instituted?\nAfter careful consideration of the record, briefs, and oral argument, we conclude that discretionary review as to the first issue was improvidently allowed.\nThe Court of Appeals dealt with the second issue as follows:\nDefendants argue that the trial court erred by assessing interest on the judgment from the date of the exchange of the Lee County property rather than from the date the action was instituted----Defendants assert that because this case did not involve an action in contract, interest should have been awarded only from the date plaintiffs filed suit.\nThis argument is feckless. Plaintiffs\u2019 claims for damages and the trial judge\u2019s subsequent order were grounded in the equitable principles of restitution or quasi-contract as opposed to the legal principles of contract law.\nIn this case, the law imposed a contract between the parties where none existed. Therefore, the trial judge\u2019s award of interest from the date of the transfer of the Lee County property was in accord with the statutory requirement that interest is awarded from the date of the breach of contract. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 24-5(a) [(1991)].\nFarmah v. Farmah, 126 N.C. App. 210, 211-212, 484 S.E.2d 96, 97 (1997).\nThe date from which interest is awarded in contract and other actions is determined by statute. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 25-4 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:\n(a) Contracts. \u2014 In an action for breach of contract . . . the amount awarded on the contract bears interest from the date of breach. ...\n(b) Other Actions. \u2014 In an action other than contract, the portion of money judgment designated by the fact finder as compensatory damages bears interest from the date the action is instituted until the judgment is satisfied.\nIn the interpretation of this statute, we are guided by well-settled principles. This Court has held:\nIn the construction of statutes, our primary task is to determine legislative intent while giving the language of the statute its natural and ordinary meaning unless the context requires otherwise.\nTurlington v. McLeod, 323 N.C. 591, 594, 374 S.E.2d 394, 397 (1988) (citing Housing Authority v. Farabee, 284 N.C. 242, 200 S.E.2d 12 (1973)). In the context of this case we find nothing to suggest that the legislature meant anything other than as stated, and we give the statute its natural and ordinary meaning.\nDefendants argue essentially that this is not a contract action governed by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 24-5(a), that N.C.G.S. \u00a7 24-5(b) applies, and that interest should have been awarded only from the date the action was instituted. We agree. Plaintiffs\u2019 claims were grounded in the equitable principles of quasi-contract which are different from the legal principles of contract law. The instant action is not one for breach of contract; it is an action other than contract. Therefore the awarding of interest is controlled by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 24-5(b) rather than (a).\nAccordingly, we must reverse the Court of Appeals as to this issue and remand to that court for further remand to the trial court to amend the judgment to award interest from the date the action was instituted until the judgment is satisfied.\nDISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED IN PART; REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "FRYE, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Allen W. Powell for plaintiff-appellees.",
      "Allen & Pinnix, P.A., by D. James Jones, Jr., for defendant-appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "NARESH K. FARMAH and SURJEET K. FARMAH v. RAM L. FARMAH and SHEELA DEVI FARMAH\nNo. 280PA97\n(Filed 9 July 1998)\nJudgments \u00a7 652 (NCI4th)\u2014 interest \u2014 date of accrual \u2014 quasi-contract action\nThe Court of Appeals erred by upholding an award of interest under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 24-5(a) from the date of a breach of contract rather than from the date the action was filed under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 24-5(b). Plaintiffs\u2019 claims were grounded in the equitable principles of quasi-contract, which are different from the legal principles of contract law.\nOn discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-31 of a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals, 126 N.C. App. 210, 484 S.E.2d 96 (1997), affirming judgment entered by Payne, J., on 15 December 1995 in District Court, Wake County. Heard in the Supreme Court 17 December 1997.\nAllen W. Powell for plaintiff-appellees.\nAllen & Pinnix, P.A., by D. James Jones, Jr., for defendant-appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0586-01",
  "first_page_order": 634,
  "last_page_order": 636
}