Legal Opinion · Dissent

Brumley v. Mallard, L.L.C.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided December 17, 2002No. COA01-1060Published

1DissentBiggs, Judge

I agree with the majority that “the evidence of indebtedness” in the case sub judice fails to indicate on its face that the transaction is a purchase money transaction, as required by N.C.G.S. § 45-21.38. However, I do believe the evidence raises a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the closing documents were “prepared under the direction and supervision of the seller.” In addition, I do not agree that the modified agreement is supported by consideration. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.

*569Summary judgment is only proper if “the pleadings, depositions, answers to…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Caldwell v. DeeseSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1975
  2. Koontz v. City of Winston-SalemSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
  3. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Branch Banking & Trust Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
  4. Ross Realty Co. v. First Citizens Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
  5. Dockery v. Quality Plastic Custom Molding, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2001

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API