Both parties excepted, but plaintiff later withdrew her exception. On 29 April 1997 a trial was held pursuant to G.S. 1- 507.7 based on the Walsers' exceptions. The trial court denied plaintiff's motions for new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict and entered judgment on 22 October 1997. We first consider whether the trial court erred in retrying this case de novo . Second, plaintiff argues that the trial should not have been de novo and that the receiver's report should have been accorded deference.
Defendants first assert that the plain meaning of the statute requires de novo review.
1- 507.7 does not set forth any particular requirements for exceptions to the receiver's report. Defendants contend that their exceptions to the receiver's report were sufficient to provide plaintiff with notice of the scope of the trial, and plaintiff was not prejudiced by the form of the exception. 1-507.7 and would conflict with the express requirement that the trial court judge submit the issue to a jury. Defendants argue that by allowing the Walsers to intervene and the receivership to proceed, the Walsers and the Catos were both given a full and fair opportunity to be heard. After careful consideration of the record, briefs and contentions of both parties, we reverse.