Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Edmunds v. Edmunds

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided December 16, 2008No. COA08-246Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partElmore, Judge

For the reasons stated below, I respectfully dissent from that part of the majority opinion holding that the trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to join Elizabeth High as a necessary party.

Defendant moved to join Elizabeth High as a defendant pursuant to Rule 25(d) because plaintiff had conveyed her right, title, and interest in the property to Elizabeth High by quitclaim deeds. The trial court denied defendant’s joinder motion in its 31 August 2007 order. This decree is supported by the following challenged findings of fact:

15. The Defendant herein, Ms. Edmunds, contends through…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Coppedge v. CoppedgeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
  2. Holland v. . SmithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1944
  3. Karner v. Roy White Flowers, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 2000
  4. Lee v. . LeeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
  5. Hammer v. HammerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2006

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

Powered by the Exa API