IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA

2022-NCCOA-678

No. COA22-30

Filed 18 October 2022

Hoke County, No. 19 CVS 768

RICHARD L. NEELEY, Plaintiff,

v.

WILLIAM C. FIELDS, JR.; WILLCOX, McFADYEN, FIELDS & SUTHERLAND 

PLLC; NANCY Y. WIGGINS, as the Executrix of the ESTATE OF RICHARD M. 

WIGGINS; KENNETH B. DANTINNE; and McCOY WIGGINS, PLLC, Defendants.

Appeal by Plaintiff from order entered 19 July 2021 by Judge D. Jack Hooks,

Jr., in Hoke County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 8 June 2022.

Stevens, Martin, Vaughn & Tadych, PLLC, by Michael J. Tadych, Hugh 

Stevens, and K. Matthew Vaughn, for plaintiff-appellant.

Pendergrass Law Firm, PLLC, by James K. Pendergrass, Jr., for defendantsappellees William C. Fields, Jr., and Willcox, McFadyen, Fields & Sutherland 

PLLC.

Alexander Ricks PLLC, by Amy P. Hunt, for defendants-appellees Nancy Y. 

Wiggins, as the Executrix of the Estate of Richard M. Wiggins, Kenneth B. 

Dantinne, and McCoy Wiggins PLLC.

MURPHY, Judge.

¶ 1 Language excepting “covenants, easements, and restrictions of record” in the 

legal description of a deed is sufficient to except all easements that are a matter of 

public record and within the chain of title. The drafter of a general warranty deed 

does not commit legal malpractice in failing to include an exception to an easement 
NEELEY V. FIELDS, ET AL.

2022-NCCOA-678

Opinion of the Court

of record in any other part of a general warranty deed if the exception has been noted 

within the general warranty deed’s legal description. Summary judgment is therefore 

appropriate in a legal malpractice action arising out of an alleged failure to include 

an exception for easements of record in the covenants clause when such exception is 

provided within the general warranty deed’s legal description.

BACKGROUND

¶ 2 Plaintiff, Richard L. Neeley, brought professional negligence claims against

two different groups of lawyers arising from his sale of real estate located in Hoke 

County (“Parker Farm Land”). The first group is the “Hoke County lawyers,” 

comprised of William C. Fields, Jr. and Willcox, McFadyen, Fields & Sutherland 

PLLC. The second group is the “Cumberland County lawyers,” comprised of Richard 

M. Wiggins,1 Kenneth B. Dantinne, and the firm that has become known as McCoy 

Wiggins, PLLC.

¶ 3 After conducting a title search and finding a recorded landscape easement

which had previously been recorded in Hoke County on 21 November 2001, the Hoke 

County lawyers drafted a deed on behalf of Neeley as the seller of the Parker Farm 

Land. The general warranty deed included the following language in the legal 

description of the property: “Together with and subject to covenants, easements and 

 

1 The estate of Richard M. Wiggins, who has since deceased, is a party to this appeal.
NEELEY V. FIELDS, ET AL.

2022-NCCOA-678

Opinion of the Court

restrictions of record.” The deed’s covenants clause warranted the property 

previously described in the deed’s legal description as follows:

And the Grantor covenants with the Grantee, that Grantor 

is seized of the premises in fee simple, has the right to 

convey the same in fee simple, that title is marketable and 

free and clear of all encumbrances, and that Grantor will 

warrant and defend the title against the lawful claims of 

all persons whomsoever, other than the following 

exceptions:

1. Utility Easements, of record, if any.

2. 2013 ad valorem taxes.

After purchasing the Parker Farm Land, the buyer contacted Neeley about the 

landscape easement and stated the easement had not been made known at the time 

of sale. The buyer then filed suit against Neeley for breach of warranty.

¶ 4 Neeley hired the Cumberland County lawyers to defend him against the buyer 

and to make a claim against the Hoke County lawyers for negligent drafting of the 

deed. After the statutory deadline had passed and without filing any negligence 

claims against the Hoke County lawyers, the Cumberland County lawyers withdrew 

representation of Neeley, citing an unspecified non-waivable conflict. Neeley

eventually settled the lawsuit with the buyer by reacquiring the property from the 

buyer for a price higher than when originally sold. Neeley then brought suit against

the Cumberland County lawyers, alleging they committed professional malpractice 

by failing to timely file a claim against the Hoke County lawyers.
NEELEY V. FIELDS, ET AL.

2022-NCCOA-678

Opinion of the Court

¶ 5 Neeley filed a verified complaint against both groups of lawyers on 4 October 

2019. Both groups of lawyers filed motions for summary judgment, and the trial court

granted both motions in an order filed on 19 July 2021. Neeley timely filed notice of 

appeal.

ANALYSIS

¶ 6 “The standard of review for summary judgment is de novo.” Forbis v. Neal,

361 N.C. 519, 524, 649 S.E.2d 382, 385 (2007).

Summary judgment is appropriate if “the pleadings, 

depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on 

file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is 

no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party 

is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” N.C. R. Civ. 

P. 56(c). The trial court may not resolve issues of fact and 

must deny the motion if there is a genuine issue as to any 

material fact. Singleton v. Stewart, 280 N.C. 460, 464, 186 

S.E.2d 400, 403 (1972). Moreover, “all inferences of fact . . 

. must be drawn against the movant and in favor of the 

party opposing the motion.” Caldwell v. Deese, 288 N.C. 

375, 378, 218 S.E.2d 379, 381 (1975) (internal quotation 

marks omitted).

Id. at 523-24, 649 S.E.2d at 385. In the instant case, the party opposing the motions 

that were granted by the trial court was Neeley. All inferences of fact are drawn in 

his favor in our de novo review of the motion to determine if there is a genuine issue 

as to any material fact. Id.

¶ 7 Summary judgment was appropriate because “there is no genuine issue as to 

any material fact and [both Defendants are] entitled to a judgment as a matter of 
NEELEY V. FIELDS, ET AL.

2022-NCCOA-678

Opinion of the Court

law.” N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c) (2021). The landscape easement was recorded in 

Hoke County on 21 November 2001. “In construing a conveyance executed after [1 

January 1968], in which there are inconsistent clauses, the courts shall determine 

the effect of the instrument on the basis of the intent of the parties as it appears from 

all of the provisions of the instrument.” N.C.G.S. § 39-1.1(a) (2021) (emphasis added). 

[S]o long as it does not prevent the application of the rule 

in Shelley’s case, conveyances executed after 1 January 

1968 in which there are inconsistent clauses shall be 

construed in accordance with [N.C.G.S. §] 39-1.1 so as to 

effectuate the intent of the parties as it appears from all 

the provisions in the instrument.

Whetsell v. Jernigan, 291 N.C. 128, 133, 229 S.E.2d 183, 187 (1976); see also Robertson 

v. Hunsinger, 132 N.C. App. 495, 499, 512 S.E.2d 480, 483 (1999) (“The intention of 

the parties is to be given effect whenever that can be done consistently with rational 

construction.”). When reviewing a general warranty deed de novo, we analyze the 

entire document to determine the grantor’s intent as a matter of law. See Elliott v. 

Cox, 100 N.C. App. 536, 538, 397 S.E.2d 319, 320 (1990) (“A deed is to be construed 

to ascertain the intention of the grantor as expressed in the language used, construed 

from the four corners of the instrument.”); Mason v. Andersen, 33 N.C. App. 568, 571, 

235 S.E.2d 880, 882 (1977) (“A deed is to be construed by the court, and the meaning 

of its terms is a question of law, not of fact.”). 

¶ 8 In the instant case, both groups of lawyers note that the general warranty deed 
NEELEY V. FIELDS, ET AL.

2022-NCCOA-678

Opinion of the Court

expressly excepted the landscape easement from the warranties. The general 

warranty deed includes the following language: “Together with and subject to 

covenants, easements and restrictions of record.” While Neeley argues that this 

language excepting easements of record within the legal description of the general 

warranty deed must have appeared as a specifically outlined exception in the 

covenants clause of the deed to be effective, we use the entire document to determine 

what the grantor’s intentions were instead of the piecemeal approach he suggests.

See Whetsell, 291 N.C. at 133, 229 S.E.2d at 187. By previously defining the property 

to be granted as “[t]ogether with and subject to covenants, easements and restrictions 

of record[,]” the general warranty deed demonstrates, as a matter of law, that 

recorded easements were contemplated as an exception to the general warranty deed.

The landscape easement at issue was an easement of record within the chain of title

and was excepted from the general warranty deed as a matter of law. The Hoke 

County lawyers did not commit professional malpractice in drafting the general 

warranty deed.

¶ 9 Since the Hoke County lawyers did not commit professional malpractice in 

drafting the general warranty deed, it follows that the Cumberland County lawyers 

had no reason to add the Hoke County lawyers to the action of the buyer of the Parker 

Farm Land against Neeley. A claim against the Cumberland County lawyers does 

not exist without first showing that there would have been a case against the Hoke 
NEELEY V. FIELDS, ET AL.

2022-NCCOA-678

Opinion of the Court

County lawyers had the Cumberland County lawyers filed in a timely manner:

Where the plaintiff bringing suit for legal malpractice has 

lost another suit allegedly due to his attorney’s negligence, 

to prove that but for the attorney’s negligence plaintiff 

would not have suffered the loss, plaintiff must prove that:

(1) The original claim was valid;

(2) It would have resulted in a judgment in his favor; and

(3) The judgment would have been collectible.

Rorrer v. Cooke, 313 N.C. 338, 361, 329 S.E.2d 355, 369 (1985). Neeley is unable to 

show that his original claim was valid or that judgment would have resulted in his 

favor. The Cumberland County lawyers did not commit professional malpractice by 

failing to sue the Hoke County lawyers as requested.

CONCLUSION

¶ 10 Even where all inferences of fact are drawn “against the movant and in favor 

of the party opposing the motion,” Caldwell, 288 N.C. at 378, 218 S.E.2d at 381, “there 

is no genuine issue as to any material fact and [the Defendants were] entitled to a 

judgment as a matter of law.” N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c) (2021). As the general 

warranty deed excluded recorded easements and the landscape easement was an 

easement of record within the chain of title at the time of drafting and recording,

Defendants did not breach a duty to Neeley, and summary judgment for Defendants

was proper.

AFFIRMED.
NEELEY V. FIELDS, ET AL.

2022-NCCOA-678

Opinion of the Court

Judges DIETZ and WOOD concur.