Title: DKH Corp. v. Rankin-Patterson Oil Co

State: north-carolina

Issuer: North Carolina Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. 353PA97
FILED: 9 JULY 1998
DKH CORPORATION, a North Carolina Corporation
v.
RANKIN-PATTERSON OIL COMPANY, INC., a North Carolina Corporation
On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31(a)
of a unanimous unpublished decision of the Court of Appeals, 126
N.C. App. 634, 487 S.E.2d 588 (1997), dismissing the plaintiff’s
appeal from an amended order allowing defendant’s motion for
summary judgment entered by Winner, J., on 7 October 1996 in
Superior Court, Buncombe County.  Heard in the Supreme Court 10
February 1998.
This case arises out of a dispute in regard to a lease
agreement.  The plaintiff, DKH Corporation, purchased from the
defendant, Rankin-Patterson Oil Company, Inc., real property in
Buncombe County containing a convenience store with gas pumps and
tanks in June of 1990.  On 1 July 1990, the two parties entered
into a lease agreement under which the plaintiff agreed to
operate the convenience store and gas station, while the
defendant supplied the gasoline.  A dispute arose between the
parties, and the plaintiff filed this action asserting claims
for: (1) unfair and deceptive practices in violation of N.C.G.S.
§ 75-5(b)(2), (2) breach of contract, (3) breach of fiduciary
duty, (4) an accounting, (5) a declaratory judgment, and (6)
injunctive relief.
-2-
The superior court granted the defendant partial
summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s unfair practice
claim.  The court certified “that there is no just reason for
delay in entering this Order or the appeal therefrom.”
The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals, which
dismissed the appeal as interlocutory.  We granted the
plaintiff’s petition for discretionary review.
Kelly & Rowe, P.A., by E. Glenn Kelly and James Gary
Rowe, for plaintiff-appellant.
Roberts & Stevens, P.A., by Christopher Z. Campbell,
for defendant-appellee.
WEBB, Justice.
The order of the superior court granting the
defendant’s motion for summary judgment did not dispose of all
the claims in the case, making it interlocutory.  Veazey v. City
of Durham, 231 N.C. 357, 362, 57 S.E.2d 377, 381 (1950).  This
case brings to the Court a question as to the effect of N.C.G.S.
§ 1A-1, Rule 54(b) on an otherwise interlocutory appeal.  This
rule was adopted by the General Assembly pursuant to its power
under Article IV, Section 12(2) of the Constitution of North
Carolina, which provides that the General Assembly shall
prescribe the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals. 
This rule provides:
Judgment upon multiple claims or involving
multiple parties. -- When more than one claim
for relief is presented in an action, whether
as a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or
third-party claim, or when multiple parties
are involved, the court may enter a final
judgment as to one or more but fewer than all
of the claims or parties only if there is no
-3-
just reason for delay and it is so determined
in the judgment.  Such judgment shall then be
subject to review by appeal or as otherwise
provided by these rules or other statutes. 
In the absence of entry of such a final
judgment, any order or other form of
decision, however designated, which
adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the
rights and liabilities of fewer than all the
parties shall not terminate the action as to
any of the claims or parties and shall not
then be subject to review either by appeal or
otherwise except as expressly provided by
these rules or other statutes.  Similarly, in
the absence of entry of such a final
judgment, any order or other form of decision
is subject to revision at any time before the
entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims
and the rights and liabilities of all the
parties.
N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 54(b) (1990).
We have interpreted the effect of Rule 54(b) in several
cases, see Tridyn Indus., Inc. v. American Mut. Ins. Co., 296
N.C. 486, 490-91, 251 S.E.2d 443, 447 (1979); Newton v. Standard
Fire Ins. Co., 291 N.C. 105, 109, 229 S.E.2d 297, 299 (1976);
Oestreicher v. American Nat’l Stores, Inc., 290 N.C. 118, 125-26,
225 S.E.2d 797, 802-03 (1976).  We have held that N.C.G.S. §
1-277 and N.C.G.S. § 7A-27(d) allow an appeal to be taken from an
interlocutory order which affects a substantial right although
the appeal may be interlocutory.  In addition to the appeals
pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 1-277 and N.C.G.S. § 7A-27(d), Rule 54(b)
provides that in an action with multiple parties or multiple
claims, if the trial court enters a final judgment as to a party
or a claim and certifies there is no just reason for delay, the
judgment is immediately appealable.  The rule provides, “Such
judgment shall then be subject to review by appeal . . . .” 
-4-
N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 54(b).  We believe this language requires
the appellate court to hear the appeal.  It was error for the
Court of Appeals not to do so.
We reverse the order of the Court of Appeals dismissing
the appeal and remand to that court to decide the case on its
merits.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.