{ "id": 4153413, "name": "IN THE MATTER OF THE FORECLOSURE OF THE DEED OF TRUST OF VOGLER REALTY, INC., Mortgagor-Grantor, to CHARLES N. STEDMAN, Trustee, and J.B. LEE & COMPANY, a North Carolina General Partnership, Noteholder As Recorded in Deed of Trust Book 1090, Page 338", "name_abbreviation": "In re the Foreclosure of the Deed of Trust of Vogler Realty, Inc.", "decision_date": "2012-01-27", "docket_number": "No. 11A11", "first_page": "389", "last_page": "402", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "365 N.C. 389" } ], "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": "703 S.E.2d 159", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2010, "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "628 S.E.2d 1", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12635483 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "3" }, { "page": "3" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/628/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "488 S.E.2d 249", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "354-55" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "346 N.C. 336", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 139626 ], "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "259" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/346/0336-01" ] }, { "cite": "26 S.E.2d 902", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1943, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "903-04", "parenthetical": "holding, under our prior foreclosure statute, that junior lienholders axe not interested parties in a proceeding to appoint a substitute trustee" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "223 N.C. 340", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8607104 ], "year": 1943, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "342-44", "parenthetical": "holding, under our prior foreclosure statute, that junior lienholders axe not interested parties in a proceeding to appoint a substitute trustee" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/223/0340-01" ] }, { "cite": "141 S.E.2d 329", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1965, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "334", "parenthetical": "stating that without a valid contract to do so a creditor is not required to give personal notice of a foreclosure by sale to a debtor or to a second priority lienholder" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "264 N.C. 234", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8572512 ], "year": 1965, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "241", "parenthetical": "stating that without a valid contract to do so a creditor is not required to give personal notice of a foreclosure by sale to a debtor or to a second priority lienholder" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/264/0234-01" ] }, { "cite": "160 S.E. 896", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1931, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "906" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "201 N.C. 577", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626992 ], "year": 1931, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "598" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/201/0577-01" ] }, { "cite": "26 S.E. 627", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "weight": 2, "year": 1897, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "627" }, { "page": "627" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "120 N.C. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8656016 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1897, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "3-4" }, { "page": "3" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/120/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "98 S.E.2d 481", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1957, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "485", "parenthetical": "recognizing that \"[t]he trustee must be impartial in the performance of his duties\" and cannot \"give an unfair advantage to one [party] to the detriment of the other\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "246 N.C. 356", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626440 ], "year": 1957, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "360", "parenthetical": "recognizing that \"[t]he trustee must be impartial in the performance of his duties\" and cannot \"give an unfair advantage to one [party] to the detriment of the other\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/246/0356-01" ] }, { "cite": "6 S.E.2d 549", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 12, "year": 1940, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "552" }, { "page": "552" }, { "page": "665-66" }, { "page": "549-50" }, { "page": "669-70" }, { "page": "552-53" }, { "page": "552", "parenthetical": "internal citations omitted" }, { "page": "669-71" }, { "page": "552-53" }, { "page": "549-50" }, { "page": "669-71" }, { "page": "552-53" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "216 N.C. 664", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8611431 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1940, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "669" }, { "page": "669" }, { "page": "669" }, { "page": "665-66" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/216/0664-01" ] }, { "cite": "557 S.E.2d 645", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "647" }, { "page": "647" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "148 N.C. App. 158", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9364308 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "161" }, { "page": "161" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/148/0158-01" ] }, { "cite": "451 S.E.2d 284", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "289" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "339 N.C. 413", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2558127 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "419-20" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/339/0413-01" ] }, { "cite": "47 S.E.2d 12", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1948, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "16", "parenthetical": "describing a ministerial duty as \"a simple and definite duty imposed by law regarding which nothing [is] left to [the clerk's] discretion\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "228 N.C. 705", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8628152 ], "year": 1948, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "711", "parenthetical": "describing a ministerial duty as \"a simple and definite duty imposed by law regarding which nothing [is] left to [the clerk's] discretion\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/228/0705-01" ] }, { "cite": "31 S.E. 286", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1898, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "287" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "123 N.C. 92", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8657450 ], "year": 1898, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "97" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/123/0092-01" ] }, { "cite": "704 S.E.2d 494", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2010, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "500" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "364 N.C. 537", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4152986 ], "year": 2010, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "545" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/364/0537-01" ] }, { "cite": "75 S.E.2d 151", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1953, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "153, 154", "parenthetical": "stating that, under our prior estates statute, the allowance of commissions to an executor required the exercise of judicial discretion by the clerk of court" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "237 N.C. 342", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8611129 ], "year": 1953, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "345, 347", "parenthetical": "stating that, under our prior estates statute, the allowance of commissions to an executor required the exercise of judicial discretion by the clerk of court" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/237/0342-01" ] }, { "cite": "553 S.E.2d 201", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "354 N.C. 69", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 138349, 138447, 138328, 138329, 138427 ], "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/354/0069-01", "/nc/354/0069-03", "/nc/354/0069-05", "/nc/354/0069-04", "/nc/354/0069-02" ] }, { "cite": "547 S.E.2d 74", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "78" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "143 N.C. App. 244", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11434232 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "251" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/143/0244-01" ] }, { "cite": "160 S.E. 579", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1931, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "581" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "201 N.C. 489", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626410 ], "year": 1931, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "493" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/201/0489-01" ] }, { "cite": "30 S.E. 344", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1898, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "345" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "122 N.C. 288", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8658774 ], "year": 1898, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "292" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/122/0288-01" ] }, { "cite": "12 S.E.2d 690", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1941, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "692" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "219 N.C. 10", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8620460 ], "year": 1941, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "13" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/219/0010-01" ] }, { "cite": "372 S.E.2d 559", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "563" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "323 N.C. 330", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2564955 ], "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "336" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/323/0330-01" ] }, { "cite": "2005 N.C. Sess. Laws 345", "category": "laws:leg_session", "reporter": "N.C. Sess. Laws", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "665 S.E.2d 449", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "451" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "362 N.C. 457", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4149743 ], "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "460" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/362/0457-01" ] }, { "cite": "434 S.E.2d 648", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "651-52" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "112 N.C. App. 67", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8520094 ], "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "72-74" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/112/0067-01" ] }, { "cite": "135 S.E.2d 574", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1964, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "577" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "261 N.C. 532", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8574501 ], "year": 1964, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "536" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/261/0532-01" ] }, { "cite": "360 N.C. 384", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3789468 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "387" }, { "page": "387" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/360/0384-01" ] }, { "cite": "684 S.E.2d 151", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "154" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "363 N.C. 612", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4151122 ], "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "616" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/363/0612-01" ] }, { "cite": "703 S.E.2d 159", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 8, "year": 2010, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "164" }, { "page": "165-68", "parenthetical": "Hunter, Jr., Robert N., J., dissenting" }, { "page": "163" }, { "page": "165", "parenthetical": "Hunter, J., dissenting" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "407 S.E.2d 816", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "818", "parenthetical": "\" '[Significance and effect should, if possible,... be accorded every part of the act, including every section, paragraph, sentence or clause, phrase, and word.' \" (alternations in original) (citation omitted)" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "329 N.C. 779", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2555416 ], "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "784", "parenthetical": "\" '[Significance and effect should, if possible,... be accorded every part of the act, including every section, paragraph, sentence or clause, phrase, and word.' \" (alternations in original) (citation omitted)" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/329/0779-01" ] }, { "cite": "455 S.E.2d 676", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "678" }, { "page": "677-78" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "118 N.C. App. 458", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11919154 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "461" }, { "page": "460-61" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/118/0458-01" ] }, { "cite": "346 S.E.2d 695", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "700", "parenthetical": "\"There are no findings indicating the number of hours reasonably expended .... The findings are deficient under [Supreme Court precedent].\" (citation omitted)" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "82 N.C. App. 470", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8359222 ], "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "478", "parenthetical": "\"There are no findings indicating the number of hours reasonably expended .... The findings are deficient under [Supreme Court precedent].\" (citation omitted)" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/82/0470-01" ] }, { "cite": "189 S.E. 189", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "weight": 2, "year": 1937, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "190" }, { "page": "190" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "211 N.C. 103", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8624451 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1937, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "105" }, { "page": "105" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/211/0103-01" ] }, { "cite": "322 S.E.2d 772", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "774" }, { "page": "774" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "312 N.C. 473", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4751898 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "475" }, { "page": "476-77" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/312/0473-01" ] }, { "cite": "323 S.E.2d 922", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "312 N.C. 621", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4757614, 4751602, 4754239, 4750583, 4751711 ], "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/312/0621-04", "/nc/312/0621-02", "/nc/312/0621-01", "/nc/312/0621-05", "/nc/312/0621-03" ] }, { "cite": "319 S.E.2d 650", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "655-56" }, { "page": "655-56" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "70 N.C. App. 221", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8521343 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "227-29" }, { "page": "227-29" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/70/0221-01" ] }, { "cite": "407 S.E.2d 857", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "329 N.C. 506", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2553520, 2555586, 2555572 ], "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/329/0506-02", "/nc/329/0506-01", "/nc/329/0506-03" ] }, { "cite": "402 S.E.2d 472", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "473-74" }, { "page": "475" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "102 N.C. App. 458", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8524608 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "459-61" }, { "page": "461" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/102/0458-01" ] }, { "cite": "423 S.E.2d 747", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "748, 751-52", "parenthetical": "indicating that, had a stock purchase agreement providing for reasonable attorney's fees been governed by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 6-21.2, the court nonetheless would have inquired into the reasonableness of the award" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "333 N.C. 148", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2550326 ], "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "150, 156", "parenthetical": "indicating that, had a stock purchase agreement providing for reasonable attorney's fees been governed by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 6-21.2, the court nonetheless would have inquired into the reasonableness of the award" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/333/0148-01" ] }, { "cite": "230 S.E.2d 541", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "548", "parenthetical": "\" '[T]he Clerk of Superior Court retains his pre-existing judicial powers in . . . special proceedings ... as a judicial officer ....'\" (citation omitted)" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "291 N.C. 386", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8558339 ], "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "396", "parenthetical": "\" '[T]he Clerk of Superior Court retains his pre-existing judicial powers in . . . special proceedings ... as a judicial officer ....'\" (citation omitted)" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/291/0386-01" ] }, { "cite": "334 S.E.2d 46", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "49" }, { "page": "49" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "314 N.C. 412", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4685603 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "416" }, { "page": "416" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/314/0412-01" ] }, { "cite": "557 S.E.2d 645", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "647" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "148 N.C. App. 158", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9364308 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "161" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/148/0158-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1408, "char_count": 36321, "ocr_confidence": 0.737, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.8798777600921763e-07, "percentile": 0.8434719553147693 }, "sha256": "dc7b148a7f9cf2db4612f50bcda2979296e3f9934cce8d9bbd6288d2d78e94be", "simhash": "1:8129f544d51fa476", "word_count": 5919 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:57:15.030367+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Justices TIMMONS-GOODSON and HUDSON join in this dissenting opinion." ], "parties": [ "IN THE MATTER OF THE FORECLOSURE OF THE DEED OF TRUST OF VOGLER REALTY, INC., Mortgagor-Grantor, to CHARLES N. STEDMAN, Trustee, and J.B. LEE & COMPANY, a North Carolina General Partnership, Noteholder As Recorded in Deed of Trust Book 1090, Page 338" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JACKSON, Justice.\nIn this appeal we consider whether the clerk of superior court has the authority to determine the reasonableness of attorney\u2019s fees that a trustee-attorney in a foreclosure proceeding pays to himself in addition to his trustee\u2019s commission. Because we hold that the clerk of superior court lacks this authority, we affirm.\nOn 26 June 1997, Vogler Realty, Inc. (\u201cdebtor\u201d) executed a promissory note payable to J.B. Lee & Company (\u201ccreditor\u201d) in the principal amount' of $250,000.00. The promissoiy note was secured by a duly recorded deed of trust on commercial real estate owned by debtor. The deed of trust named Charles N. Stedman, a licensed attorney, as trustee. The deed of trust included a power of sale and provided for the payment of \u201creasonable\u201d attorney\u2019s fees as a cost thereof, stating in pertinent part: \u201cThe Trustee shall be authorized to retain an attorney to represent him in [foreclosure] proceedings. The proceeds of the Sale shall after the Trustee retains his commission, together with reasonable attorneys [sic] fees incurred by the Trustee in such proceeding, be applied to the costs of sale ....\u201d The property also was encumbered by Robert J. Wishart as the second priority lienholder, CommunityOne Bank, N.A. as the third priority lienholder, and Fidelity Bank as the fourth priority lienholder.\nDebtor defaulted on its obligations pursuant to the promissory note and deed of trust by failing to make payments to creditor after 13 January 2009. Creditor thereafter accelerated the entire outstanding balance owed in accordance with the promissory note and demanded payment in full. On 20 March 2009, Stedman, in his capacity as trustee, filed a petition and notice of hearing on foreclosure in the Superior Court, Alamance County pursuant to the power of sale contained in the deed of trust. The petition stated that Stedman was a neutral party and would not advocate for either debtor or creditor.\nAt a hearing before the Alamance County Clerk of Court (the \u201cclerk\u201d) on 21 April 2009, debtor admitted default and did not contest the foreclosure proceedings. Thereafter, the clerk made the required findings of fact and entered an order authorizing Stedman to proceed with the foreclosure sale. Stedman held the foreclosure sale on 13 May 2009 and subsequently filed a report of sale. Two upset bids were filed after the sale. Debtor\u2019s right of redemption expired on 11 June 2009, after which the final sale was consummated. On 26 June 2009, Stedman submitted the final report and account of foreclosure sale to the clerk for audit and approval in accordance with sections 45-21.31 and 45-21.33 of the North Carolina General Statutes. According to the final report, the final sale generated proceeds totaling $336,262.50.\nFrom the proceeds Stedman, as trustee, paid the costs and expenses of the foreclosure proceeding, including: (1) a trustee\u2019s commission of $16,813.12 (5% of the highest upset bid pursuant to section 45-21.15(a) of the North Carolina General Statutes); and (2) a trustee\u2019s attorney\u2019s fee of $33,573.82 (15% of the outstanding balance on the promissory note). The remaining proceeds were disbursed as follows: (1) $229,762.30 to creditor; (2) $31,685.61 to Wishart; and (3) $22,743.65 to CommunityOne. Fidelity Bank, the fourth priority lienholder, received nothing. The distributions fully satisfied the debts owed to creditor and Wishart, but CommunityOne still was owed a balance of $78,862.60.\nOn 13 July 2009, CommunityOne filed a motion before the Clerk of Superior Court, Alamance County, objecting to Stedman\u2019s disbursement of the proceeds on the basis that Stedman failed to demonstrate any justification for paying himself attorney\u2019s fees in addition to his trustee\u2019s commission. In response to CommunityOne\u2019s motion, Stedman filed an affidavit and itemization showing the services that he performed, his usual hourly rate ($300.00 per hour), and the time he spent working on the foreclosure proceeding (71.8 hours). Based upon the documentation submitted by Stedman, the value of his services amounted to $21,540.00.\nOn 27 July 2009, following a hearing on CommunityOne\u2019s motion, the clerk approved the five percent (5%) trustee\u2019s commission, but reduced Stedman\u2019s attorney\u2019s fees to $4,726.88. Pursuant to the clerk\u2019s order, Stedman would receive $21,540.00 total, an amount equal to the total value of his trustee and attorney services according to the statements and figures Stedman provided in his affidavit and itemization. Stedman appealed to the superior court. After holding a hearing on 12 October 2009, the superior court affirmed the clerk\u2019s order on 4 November 2009. Stedman appealed to the Court of Appeals.\nThe Court of Appeals, in a divided opinion, vacated the clerk\u2019s and trial court\u2019s orders, holding that the clerk lacked the statutory authority to determine the reasonableness of attorney\u2019s fees paid in a foreclosure proceeding. In re Foreclosure of Vogler Realty, Inc., _ N.C. App. _, _, 703 S.E.2d 159, 164 (2010). The dissenting opinion argued that section 32-61 Of the North Carolina General Statutes authorizes a clerk to determine the reasonableness of attorney\u2019s fees that a trustee-attorney seeks to pay to himself in a foreclosure proceeding. Id. at _, 703 S.E.2d at 165-68 (Hunter, Jr., Robert N., J., dissenting). CommunityOne filed notice of appeal with this Court based upon the dissent.\nCommunityOne argues that section 32-61 of the North Carolina General Statutes authorizes the clerk of superior court to determine the reasonableness of a trustee-attorney\u2019s payment of attorney\u2019s fees to himself in a foreclosure proceeding. We disagree.\nWe review matters of statutory interpretation de novo because they present questions of law. In re Ernst & Young, LLP, 363 N.C. 612, 616, 684 S.E.2d 151, 154 (2009). \u201c[W]hen the language of a statute is ambiguous, this Court will determine the purpose of the statute and the intent of the legislature in its enactment.\u201d Diaz v. Div. of Soc. Servs., 360 N.C. 384, 387, 628 S.E.2d 1, 3 (2006). In these situations, \u201cthe history of the legislation may be considered in connection with the object, purpose and language of the statute in order to arrive at its true meaning.\u201d Lithium Corp. of Am. v. Town of Bessemer City, 261 N.C. 532, 536, 135 S.E.2d 574, 577 (1964). However, \u201c[wjhen the language of a statute is clear and without ambiguity, it is the duty of this Court to give effect to the plain meaning of the statute, and judicial construction of legislative intent is not required.\u201d Diaz, 360 N.C. at 387, 628 S.E.2d at 3.\nArticle 6 of Chapter 32 of the North Carolina General Statutes is titled, \u201cCompensation of Trustees and Other Fiduciaries.\u201d Section 32-61 states:\nThe clerk of superior court may exercise discretion to allow counsel fees to an attorney serving as a fiduciaiy or trustee (in addition to the compensation allowed to the attorney as a fiduciary or trustee) where the attorney, on behalf of the trust or fiduciary relationship, renders professional services as an attorney that are different from the services normally performed by a fiduciary or trustee and of a type which would reasonably justify the retention of legal counsel by a fiduciary or trustee who is not licensed to practice law.\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 32-61 (2009). Both the majority and dissenting opinions in the Court of Appeals refer to section 32-61, and both opine that there is some applicability of this statute to a foreclosure sale. The majority would limit its applicability to a foreclosure sale that is \u201cincomplete and terminated pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 45-21.20\u201d in reliance on its precedent in In re Foreclosure of Newcomb, 112 N.C. App. 67, 72-74, 434 S.E.2d 648, 651-52 (1993). In re Vogler, _ N.C. App. at _, 703 S.E.2d at 163. The dissent would go further, contending that Newcomb is not limited to \u201conly those situations in which the foreclosure was arrested by payment of the underlying debt pursuant to N.C.[G.S.] \u00a7 45-21.20.\u201d Id. at _, 703 S.E.2d at 165 (Hunter, J., dissenting). We reject both propositions. Instead, we read section 32-53(4) as providing that Article 6 applies only to trusts as defined in the North Carolina Uniform Trust Code. See N.C.G.S. \u00a7 32-53(4) (2009). Chapter 36C, the Uniform Trust Code, expressly excludes from its scope \u201ctrusts for the primary purpose of paying debts.\u201d Id. \u00a7 36C-1-102 (2009). Significantly, the Uniform Trust Code states that \u201c[t]he term [trustee] does not include trustees in mortgages and deeds of trust.\u201d Id. \u00a7 36C-1-103(22) (2009). Therefore, section 32-61 does not apply to trustee-attorneys in foreclosure proceedings.\nThis conclusion also is supported by the legislative history of Article 6. \u201cWhen interpreting a statute, we ascertain the intent of the legislature, first by applying the statute\u2019s language and, if necessary, considering its legislative history and the circumstances of its enactment.\u201d Shaw v. U.S. Airways, Inc., 362 N.C. 457, 460, 665 S.E.2d 449, 451 (2008). Although the statute in the instant case is relatively straightforward, there is ample legislative history that also supports our construction of the General Assembly\u2019s intention. The bill analysis for Senate Bill 470, the legislation that revised and repealed Article 5 to create Article 6, states that \u201cSenate Bill 470 rewrites the law dealing with the compensation of trustees and other fiduciaries when the terms of certain trusts do not specify the compensation.\u201d Staff of N.C. Sen. Comm. on Jud. II, Summary of S. 470: Compensation of Trustees/Other Fiduciaries, 2003 Reg. Sess. 1 (Apr. 10, 2003). The bill analysis routinely refers to both trustees and other fiduciaries in the context of \u201ctrusts,\u201d but never with respect to \u201cdeeds of trust\u201d or other instruments. See id at 2. (stating, for example, that \u201cG.S. 32-58 would authorize the clerk of court, upon written request by a fiduciary other than the trustee, to determine reasonable compensation for that fiduciary, unless prohibited by the trust\u201d (emphasis added)). Moreover, the bill analysis expressly states the legislature\u2019s intent that the word \u201ctrust\u201d \u201chave the same meaning as it has in Article 3 of Chapter 36A,\u201d id. at 1, which used substantially the same definition of \u201ctrust\u201d that currently is found in the Uniform Trust Code. Compare N.C.G.S. \u00a7 36A-22.1, repealed by Act of July 7, 2005, ch. 192, sec. 1, 2005 N.C. Sess. Laws 345, 345, with N.C.G.S. \u00a7 36C-1-102 (2009). Construing the language of Article 6 in conjunction with its legislative history, we believe it is clear that the legislature intended Article 6 to encompass trustees and other fiduciaries only in the context of trusts subject to the North Carolina Uniform Trust Code. Therefore, we conclude that section 32-61 of the North Carolina General Statutes is inapplicable in a foreclosure by power of sale pursuant to a deed of trust.\nInstead, our foreclosure statutes, specifically, Article 2A of Chapter 45 of the North Carolina General Statutes, control the case sub judice. Section 45-21.31(a) outlines the procedure for distributing the proceeds of a foreclosure sale:\n(a) The proceeds of any sale shall be applied by the person making the sale, in the following order, to the payment of\u2014\n(1)Costs and expenses of the sale, including the trustee\u2019s commission, if any, and a reasonable auctioneer\u2019s fee if such expense has been incurred;\n(2) Taxes due and unpaid on the property sold, as provided by G.S. 105-385, unless the notice of sale provided that the property be sold subject to taxes thereon and the property was so sold;\n(3) Special assessments, or any installments thereof, against the property sold, which are due and unpaid, as provided by G.S. 105-385, unless the notice of sale provided that the property be sold subject to special assessments thereon and the property was so sold;\n(4) The obligation secured by the mortgage, deed of trust or conditional sale contract.\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 45-21.31(a) (2009). The costs and expenses listed in items (1), (2), and (3) are not the responsibility of the debtor or creditor, but rather \u201care simply obligations arising from the foreclosure sale which must be paid by the trustee before the remainder of the proceeds may be distributed.\u201d Merritt v. Edwards Ridge, 323 N.C. 330, 336, 372 S.E.2d 559, 563 (1988). Although not specifically Usted in section 45-21.31(a)(1), a trustee\u2019s attorney\u2019s fee provided for in the deed of trust is a \u201ccost[ ] and expense[ ] of the sale\u201d and therefore, must be paid by the trustee. See id.) N.C.G.S. \u00a7 45-21.31(a)(l) (2009). After these proceeds have been distributed, section 45-21.33 mandates a final report of the sale and an audit by the clerk of superior court:\n(a) A person who holds a sale of real property pursuant to a power of sale shall file with the clerk of the superior court... a final report and account of his receipts and disbursements ....\n(b) The clerk shall audit the account and record it.\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 45-21.33(a), (b) (2009). Notably, this statute does not authorize the clerk to review the distribution of attorney\u2019s fees for reasonableness.\nIndeed, we consistently have emphasized that the clerk of superior court has limited jurisdictional authority. \u201cIn this State the clerk of superior court is a court of very limited jurisdiction, having only such authority as is given by statute.\u201d Cook v. Bradsher, 219 N.C. 10, 13, 12 S.E.2d 690, 692 (1941). Thus, generally the clerk \u201chas no common-law jurisdiction, nor does [the clerk] have any equitable jurisdiction.\u201d McCauley v. McCauley, 122 N.C. 288, 292, 30 S.E. 344, 345 (1898). Consequently, the clerk cannot perform functions involving the exercise of judicial discretion in the absence of statutory authority. See Dixon v. Osborne, 201 N.C. 489, 493, 160 S.E. 579, 581 (1931); see also In re Estate of Parrish, 143 N.C. App. 244, 251, 547 S.E.2d 74, 78 (stating that an estate proceeding is \u201cnot a civil action but a proceeding concerning an estate matter, which [is] exclusively within the purview of the Clerk\u2019s jurisdiction, and over which the Superior Court retain[s] appellate, not original jurisdiction\u201d), disc. review denied, 354 N.C. 69, 553 S.E.2d 201 (2001).\nIn other contexts, when the legislature has intended for the clerk to possess discretionary authority over commissions and attorney\u2019s fees, it specifically has set forth this authority, prefaced with the use of \u201cmay\u201d or \u201cin the discretion of.\u201d See N.C.G.S. \u00a7 35A-1116(a) (2009) (guardianship); N.C.G.S. \u00a7\u00a7 28A-23-3, 23-4 (2009) (estates); see also Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. Waddell, 237 N.C. 342, 345, 347, 75 S.E.2d 151, 153, 154 (1953) (stating that, under our prior estates statute, the allowance of commissions to an executor required the exercise of judicial discretion by the clerk of court). However, such a grant of authority is completely absent in section 45-21.33. See Boseman v. Jarrell, 364 N.C. 537, 545, 704 S.E.2d 494, 500 (2010) (\u201cIf the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, there is no room for judicial construction and the courts must give the statute its plain and definite meaning, and are without power to interpolate, or superimpose, provisions and limitations not contained therein.\u201d (internal quotation marks omitted)). Moreover, the audit itself is ministerial, rather than discretionary in nature, \u201cbecause the law requires [the clerk] to do [it] without any application or request.\u201d Bryan v. Stewart, 123 N.C. 92, 97, 31 S.E. 286, 287 (1898); see also State ex. rel. Owens v. Chaplin, 228 N.C. 705, 711, 47 S.E.2d 12, 16 (1948) (describing a ministerial duty as \u201ca simple and definite duty imposed by law regarding which nothing [is] left to [the clerk\u2019s] discretion\u201d). \u201c[A] statute clear on its face must be enforced as written.\u201d Bowers v. City of High Point, 339 N.C. 413, 419-20, 451 S.E.2d 284, 289 (1994). Therefore, during the audit the clerk is not authorized to review the trustee-attorney\u2019s payment of attorney\u2019s fees to himself for reasonableness, as this action would involve an improper exercise of judicial discretion. Instead, the clerk\u2019s audit pursuant to section 45-21.33(a) and (b) is a ministerial act that is limited to determining merely \u201cwhether the entries in the report reflect the actual receipts and disbursements made by the trustee\u201d in the absence of a grant of original jurisdiction to determine additional matters. In re Foreclosure of Webber, 148 N.C. App. 158, 161, 557 S.E.2d 645, 647 (2001).\nAs a result, the trustee is responsible for distributing the appropriate amount of attorney\u2019s fees in accordance with the provisions of the deed of trust. However, \u201creasonable\u201d attorney\u2019s fees should not be construed to mean the fifteen percent (15%) fee allowed pursuant to section 6-21.2(2) of the North Carolina General Statutes as Stedman argues. See N.C.G.S. \u00a7 6-21.2(2) (2009) (generally governing the payment of attorney\u2019s fees in civil actions and proceedings and authorizing payment of a fifteen percent fee by a debtor to a creditor who collects on the underlying debt through an attorney). Section 6-21.2 is inapplicable to trustee\u2019s attorney\u2019s fees because the trustee is an agent of both the debtor and the creditor, Mills v. Mut. Bldg. & Loan Ass\u2019n, 216 N.C. 664, 669, 6 S.E.2d 549, 552 (1940), and section 6-21.2 governs only attorney\u2019s fees for the creditor\u2019s attorney. See N.C.G.S. \u00a7 6-21.2 (2009). Accordingly, if the deed of trust calls for \u201creasonable\u201d attorney\u2019s fees then the trustee should distribute a reasonable amount under the circumstances.\nThis conclusion is consistent with the purpose underlying deeds of trust. \u201cThe object of deeds of trust is, by means of the introduction of trustees as impartial agents of the creditor and debtor alike, to provide a convenient, cheap and speedy mode of satisfying debts on default of payment; to assure fair dealing and eliminate the opportunity for oppression; to remove the necessity of the intervention of the courts; and to facilitate the transfer of the note or notes secured without the necessity for a similar transfer of the security.\u201d Mills, 216 N.C. at 669, 6 S.E.2d at 552. In the absence of statutoiy authority, the clerk of court has no role in assessing the reasonableness of attorney\u2019s fees.\nMoreover, the aggrieved creditor is not left without a remedy, as it may, in appropriate circumstances, bring an action for breach of fiduciary duty against the trustee. See id. at 665-66, 6 S.E.2d at 549-50. This Court long has recognized that the trustee of a deed of trust stands in a fiduciary relationship with both the debtor and creditor. See, e.g., id. at 669-70, 6 S.E.2d at 552-53; Gregg v. Williamson, 246 N.C. 356, 360, 98 S.E.2d 481, 485 (1957) (recognizing that \u201c[t]he trustee must be impartial in the performance of his duties\u201d and cannot \u201cgive an unfair advantage to one [party] to the detriment of the other\u201d); Hinton v. Pritchard, 120 N.C. 1, 3-4, 26 S.E. 627, 627 (1897). A fiduciary relationship is one in which \u201cthere has been a special confidence reposed in [another] who in equity and good conscience is bound to act in good faith and with due regard to the interests of the one reposing confidence.\u201d Abbitt v. Gregory, 201 N.C. 577, 598, 160 S.E. 896, 906 (1931). In the context of a deed of trust:\nThe trustee for sale is bound by his office to bring the estate to a sale under every possible advantage to the debtor as well as to the creditor[,] and he is bound to use not only good faith but also every requisite degree of diligence in conducting the sale and to attend equally to the interest of the debtor and the creditor alike, apprising both of the intention of selling, that each may take the means to procure an advantageous sale. He is charged with the duty of fidelity as well as impartiality, of good faith and every requisite degree of diligence, of making due advertisement and giving due notice. Upon default his duties are rendered responsible, critical and active and he is required to act discreetly, as well as judiciously, in making the best use of the security for the protection of the beneficiaries.\nMills, 216 N.C. at 669, 6 S.E.2d at 552 (internal citations omitted).\nHowever, we observe that prior decisions of this Court have not extended this fiduciary relationship beyond the foreclosing lienholder. See, e.g., id. at 669-71, 6 S.E.2d at 552-53; Hinton, 120 N.C. at 3, 26 S.E. at 627. As a corollary, a subordinate lienholder in this state is not entitled to notice of a foreclosure by power of sale. See N.C.G.S. \u00a7 45-21.16(b) (2009) (listing among the parties entitled to notice: (1) \u201c[a]ny person to whom the security interest instrument itself directs notice to be sent in case of default\u201d); (2) \u201c[a]ny person obligated to repay the indebtedness\u201d; and (3) \u201c[e]very record owner of the real estate,\u201d which specifically \u201cdoes not mean or include\u201d any \u201cholder of a... lien or security interest in the real property\u201d); cf. Certain-Teed Prods. Corp. v. Sanders, 264 N.C. 234, 241, 141 S.E.2d 329, 334 (1965) (stating that without a valid contract to do so a creditor is not required to give personal notice of a foreclosure by sale to a debtor or to a second priority lienholder); Thompson v. State, 223 N.C. 340, 342-44, 26 S.E.2d 902, 903-04 (1943) (holding, under our prior foreclosure statute, that junior lienholders axe not interested parties in a proceeding to appoint a substitute trustee). For if the trustee owed a fiduciary duty to the subordinate lienholder, the trustee conceivably would be compelled to give the subordinate lienholder notice of the foreclosure sale so that the subordinate lienholder could enforce its rights. See N.C.G.S. \u00a7 45-21.16(a) (2009) (requiring a trustee exercising a power of sale to serve each party entitled to notice with a notice that specifies the time and place for a foreclosure hearing). This result is appropriate because it is incumbent upon a subordinate lienholder to contemplate the risk associated with subordinating its right to payment to that of a higher priority lienholder. See Patrick K. Hetrick et al., N.C. Real Estate Comm\u2019n, North Carolina Real Estate Manual 459 (2008-09 ed. 2008) (stating that \u201c[s]ince a junior mortgage can be satisfied from the proceeds of a sale to foreclose a senior mortgage only after the prior (senior) mortgage has been fully satisfied, a lender taking a junior mortgage as security incurs a greater risk than one who receives a first mortgage\u201d). In addition, the subordinate lienholder is not left without recourse, because it has an adequate means to compensate for this risk by charging a higher interest rate on the debt. Id. Therefore, we affirm our previous decisions holding that, in the context of a foreclosure sale, only a foreclosing lienholder may bring a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the trustee of a deed of trust being foreclosed upon.\nIn the case sub judice the clerk should have limited his audit to determining only \u201cwhether the entries in the report reflected] the actual receipts and disbursements made by [Stedman]\u201d pursuant to section 45-21.33 of the North Carolina General Statutes. In re Webber, 148 N.C. App. at 161, 557 S.E.2d at 647. The clerk was not authorized to review Stedman\u2019s payment of attorney\u2019s fees to himself for reasonableness. Therefore, we hold that the clerk exceeded his statutory authority by reducing Stedman\u2019s attorney\u2019s fees.\nAs we noted, the proper avenue for an aggrieved creditor to challenge a distribution of attorney\u2019s fees in the trustee\u2019s final report is not before the clerk, but rather by filing a separate action for breach of fiduciary duty. See Mills, 216 N.C. at 665-66, 6 S.E.2d at 549-50. However, as we also have held, in this context only the foreclosing lienholder may bring such a claim. See, e.g., id. at 669-71, 6 S.E.2d at 552-53. Therefore, because CommunityOne is a third priority lienholder, it lacks standing to challenge the distributions in Stedman\u2019s final report. Accordingly, we hold that, absent a viable challenge for breach of fiduciary duty from a creditor with standing, Stedman\u2019s payment of attorney\u2019s fees to himself in addition to a trustee\u2019s commission cannot be upset.\nWe are mindful of the dissent\u2019s concerns that we may be left with a \u201cwrong that has no remedy.\u201d Nonetheless, we also are mindful of this Court\u2019s prior reluctance to wade into matters best left to the legislative process for discussing and determining the best resolution to such a problem. See State v. Leandro, 346 N.C. 336, 259, 488 S.E.2d 249, 354-55 (1997). \u201cThe legislature, unlike the courts, is not limited to addressing only cases and controversies brought before it by litigants. The legislature can properly conduct public healings and committee meetings at which it can hear and consider the views of the general public as well as . . . experts and permit the full expression of all points of view as to\u201d the best resolution for the complicated issues that now arise in a multi-creditor real estate market, should it see such a need. Id. We therefore affirm the opinion of the Court of Appeals.\nAFFIRMED.\n. CommunityOne submitted the first upset bid.", "type": "majority", "author": "JACKSON, Justice." }, { "text": "Justice NEWBY,\ndissenting.\nToday we are faced with a power of sale trustee-attorney who mistakenly paid himself an attorney\u2019s fee based on N.C.G.S. \u00a7 6-21.2(2). The question before us is whether there is a judicial role in correcting that error. Though it recognizes that the trustee improperly relied on N.C.G.S. \u00a7 6-21.2(2), the majority holds that the clerk of superior court lacks the authority to determine the reasonableness of that fee. The majority\u2019s rigid view gives the trustee sole power over the distribution of proceeds in a power of sale foreclosure. Here this position results in a clear wrong that has no remedy, but requires this Court to overlook it nonetheless. Foreclosure by power of sale is a special judicial proceeding in which the clerk has judicial authority. To hold that the clerk nonetheless lacks authority to determine whether proceeds were distributed lawfully and reasonably would ignore the statutory framework under which power of sale foreclosures occur and the clerk\u2019s judicial role in that system. This cannot be what the General Assembly intended. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.\nIn this case the power of sale foreclosure was carried out under a deed of trust that provided for payment of \u201creasonable\u201d attorney\u2019s fees in'the event of such foreclosure. After the foreclosure sale the trustee, who also acted as the trustee\u2019s attorney, based on his misunderstanding of the law paid himself an attorney\u2019s fee of fifteen percent of the outstanding balance that the first priority creditor was owed on the promissory note. The clerk of superior court, believing he had the judicial power to correct this error, reduced the amount of attorney\u2019s fees such that the trustee\u2019s total compensation equaled the value of all services he actually performed.\nIn North Carolina clerks of superior court have no power other than that which is given to them by statute. In re Locklear, 314 N.C. 412, 416, 334 S.E.2d 46, 49 (1985). For the reasons stated by the majority, I agree that N.C.G.S. \u00a7 32-61 does not give clerks the authority to determine the reasonableness of attorney\u2019s fees in these cases. The authority to assess reasonableness can nonetheless be found in our statutes. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-40 states that \u201c[t]he clerk of superior court... in the exercise of other judicial powers conferred upon him by law in respect of special proceedings ... is a judicial officer of the Superior Court Division.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-40 (2011). This Court has interpreted this statute to \u201cconfer[ ] judicial power in special proceedings upon the clerk.\u201d In re Locklear, 314 N.C. at 416, 334 S.E.2d at 49; see also In re Estate of Adamee\u2019s, 291 N.C. 386, 396, 230 S.E.2d 541, 548 (1976) (\u201c \u2018[T]he Clerk of Superior Court retains his pre-existing judicial powers in . . . special proceedings ... as a judicial officer ....\u2019\u201d (citation omitted)). Indisputably, a foreclosure by power of sale is a special proceeding. Clerks, then, have judicial power in a power of sale foreclosure proceeding, which includes the power to determine reasonableness of attorney\u2019s fees.\nThough the majority holds that there is no allowable review of a fee paid under the deed of trust\u2019s \u201creasonable fee\u201d provision, .the judicial role of the clerk remains the same in cases in which an instrument provides for reasonable attorney\u2019s fees. In such cases, courts of this state will inquire into the reasonableness of fees. See Nucor Corp. v. Gen. Bearing Corp., 333 N.C. 148, 150, 156, 423 S.E.2d 747, 748, 751-52 (1992) (indicating that, had a stock purchase agreement providing for reasonable attorney\u2019s fees been governed by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 6-21.2, the court nonetheless would have inquired into the reasonableness of the award); see also West End III Ltd. Partners v. Lamb, 102 N.C. App. 458, 459-61, 402 S.E.2d 472, 473-74, disc. rev. denied, 329 N.C. 506, 407 S.E.2d 857 (1991); Coastal Prod. Credit Ass\u2019n v. Goodson Farms, Inc., 70 N.C. App. 221, 227-29, 319 S.E.2d 650, 655-56, disc. rev. denied, 312 N.C. 621, 323 S.E.2d 922 (1984). Therefore, when a deed of trust provides for reasonable attorney\u2019s fees in a power of sale foreclosure, the clerk of court, as the judicial officer in that special proceeding, has the power to determine the reasonableness of the fees awarded.\nWhen attorney\u2019s fees are appropriate and the amount is not fixed by instrument, statute, or otherwise, it is within the court\u2019s discretion to approve the amount of the fee. See Owensby v. Owensby, 312 N.C. 473, 475, 322 S.E.2d 772, 774 (1984); see also Goodson Farms, 70 N.C. App. at 227-29, 319 S.E.2d at 655-56. The amount of the fee must be reasonable, Hood v. Cheshire, 211 N.C. 103, 105, 189 S.E. 189, 190 (1937), a determination that involves consideration of a number of factors. These factors include, inter alia, \u201cthe nature and scope of legal services rendered,\u201d \u201cthe customary fee,\u201d and \u201c \u2018the novelty and difficulty of the questions of law.\u2019 \u201d Owensby, 312 N.C. at 476-77, 322 S.E.2d at 774. In particular, the courts of this state have repeatedly emphasized that the actual number of hours worked is significant in this analysis. See id.; Hood, 211 N.C. at 105, 189 S.E. at 190; Lamb, 102 N.C. App. at 461, 402 S.E.2d at 475; Lowder v. All Star Mills, Inc., 82 N.C. App. 470, 478, 346 S.E.2d 695, 700 (1986) (\u201cThere are no findings indicating the number of hours reasonably expended .... The findings are deficient under [Supreme Court precedent].\u201d (citation omitted)).\nIn concluding that clerks have a judicial role in determining reasonableness of fees, it is necessary to explain why In re Foreclosure of Ferrell Brothers Farms, Inc., 118 N.C. App. 458, 455 S.E.2d 676 (1995), and In re Foreclosure of Webber, 148 N.C. App. 158, 557 S.E.2d 645 (2001), misinterpret N.C.G.S. \u00a7 45-21.33. In those cases the Court of Appeals held that under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 45-21.33(b), the clerk\u2019s \u201caudit\u201d of the final report of sale is limited to \u201cdetermin[ing] whether the entries in the report reflect the actual receipts and disbursements made by the trustee.\u201d In re Webber, 148 N.C. App. at 161, 557 S.E.2d at 647; In re Ferrell Bros. Farms, 118 N.C. App. at 461, 455 S.E.2d at 678. Here the trustee relies on this statement to argue that the clerk is therefore barred from inquiring into the reasonableness of those entries. The statutory framework under which power of sale foreclosures are carried out demonstrates that this assertion is incorrect.\nThe General Assembly has provided specific procedures for conducting a power of sale foreclosure. Among these is a provision governing the distribution of sale proceeds. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 45-21.31(a) (2011). Under the statute the proceeds must be distributed in a particular order by the trustee, id., and the trustee\u2019s commission and attorney\u2019s fees are paid out of the proceeds, id.; see also In re Ferrell Bros. Farms, 118 N.C. App. at 460-61, 455 S.E.2d at 677-78. These disbursements are to be disclosed in the final report of the sale. N.C.G.S.. \u00a7 45-21.33(a) (2012). To hold that the clerk\u2019s audit power under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 45-21.33 extends only to determining whether the entries reflect actual receipts or disbursements means the clerk cannot evaluate the report to determine whether the distributions were made in compliance with the provisions of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 45-21.31(a) specifying how sales proceeds are to be distributed. Notwithstanding whether the trustee\u2019s misapplication was intentional or negligent, the majority would say there is no power to review the trustee\u2019s distribution of proceeds. This holding would seem to give the trustee unrestrained power to violate the statute. We cannot assume that the General Assembly would enact a provision specifying the order of distribution of proceeds in a foreclosure sale without intending that the provision be enforceable by some means \u2014 in this case by the judicial officer charged with supervising the sale. See Hall v. Simmons, 329 N.C. 779, 784, 407 S.E.2d 816, 818 (1991) (\u201c \u2018[Significance and effect should, if possible,... be accorded every part of the act, including every section, paragraph, sentence or clause, phrase, and word.\u2019 \u201d (alternations in original) (citation omitted)). I agree with the majority\u2019s conclusion that N.C.G.S. \u00a7\u00a7 6-21.2(2) and 32-61 do not provide this enforcement mechanism. Nevertheless, the General Assembly has given the clerk a judicial role in special proceedings. The clerk has specific duties under the statutory framework of Chapter 45, as well as the more general supervisory authority awarded by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-40.\nHere the clerk appropriately acted within his judicial power and properly concluded that the trustee paid himself an unreasonable attorney\u2019s fee. The clerk multiplied the 71.8 hours the trustee worked on the matter by the trustee\u2019s standard charge for legal services of $300.00 per hour, producing a total of $21,540.00. After approving the trustee\u2019s commission of $16,813.12, the clerk reduced the attorney\u2019s fee to $4,726.88, recognizing that a reasonable attorney\u2019s fee is one that accurately reflects the amount of work performed. This brought the trustee\u2019s total fee to $21,540.00, a payment equal to the value of the services he provided.\nBecause power of sale foreclosures are a special proceeding in which clerks of superior court have judicial power, clerks are authorized to exercise the courts\u2019 general power to determine the reasonableness of attorney\u2019s fees paid by the trustee-attorney to himself. The analysis of reasonableness properly includes an inquiry into the value of the services actually performed, as the clerk did here. Consequently, I respectfully dissent.\nJustices TIMMONS-GOODSON and HUDSON join in this dissenting opinion.", "type": "dissent", "author": "Justice NEWBY," } ], "attorneys": [ "Bell, Davis & Pitt, P.A., by Michael D. Phillips and Michael A. Myers, for petitioner-appellant CommunityOne Bank, N.A.", "Stedman Law, by Charles N. Stedman, pro se, for Trusteeappellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "IN THE MATTER OF THE FORECLOSURE OF THE DEED OF TRUST OF VOGLER REALTY, INC., Mortgagor-Grantor, to CHARLES N. STEDMAN, Trustee, and J.B. LEE & COMPANY, a North Carolina General Partnership, Noteholder As Recorded in Deed of Trust Book 1090, Page 338\nNo. 11A11\n(Filed 27 January 2012)\nAttorney Fees\u2014 foreclosure proceeding \u2014 no statutory authority for clerk of superior court to determine reasonableness\nThe Court of Appeals did not err by concluding that the clerk of superior court did not have the authority to determine the reasonableness of attorney fees that a trustee-attorney in a foreclosure proceeding paid to himself in addition to his trustee\u2019s commission absent a viable challenge for breach of fiduciary duty from a creditor with standing. Instead, the clerk\u2019s audit under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 45-21.33(a) and (b) was a ministerial act that was limited to determining whether the entries in the report reflected the actual receipts and disbursements made by the trustee in the absence of a grant of original jurisdiction to determine additional matters.\nJustice NEWBY dissenting.\nAppeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals,-N.C. App. \u2022 \u2014 \u2022, 703 S.E.2d 159 (2010), vacating an order entered on 4 November 2009 by Judge Ronald L. Stephens in Superior Court, Alamance County. Heard in the Supreme Court on 6 September 2011.\nBell, Davis & Pitt, P.A., by Michael D. Phillips and Michael A. Myers, for petitioner-appellant CommunityOne Bank, N.A.\nStedman Law, by Charles N. Stedman, pro se, for Trusteeappellee." }, "file_name": "0389-01", "first_page_order": 427, "last_page_order": 440 }