Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hardy v. Moore County

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided May 18, 1999No. COA98-1007Published

1Dissent

Judge Wynn

dissenting.

I am compelled to dissent in this matter because I find that the defendants have failed to meet the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-375 (1997). Specifically, I find that the defendants failed to exercise due diligence before resorting to publication as a means of providing plaintiff Nicholas Hardy with notice of the foreclosure proceedings against him.

As stated by the majority opinion, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105-375 provides an in rem method of foreclosure to local taxing units. The notice provision of that statute requires the tax collector to inform the relevant party…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Fountain v. PatrickCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980
  2. Emanuel v. FellowsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980
  3. Barclays American/Mortgage Corp. v. BECA EnterprisesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1994

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

Powered by the Exa API