Case Name: DORIS ELLIS, ETHEL YOUNG, EUGENE YOUNG, DOROTHY PATTERSON, and CENTRAL PARK TENANTS ASSOCIATION v. PETER P. WILLIAMS, HENRY D. HAYWOOD, and ALFRED L. HOBGOOD, JR., d/b/a CENTRAL PARK ASSOCIATES; JOEL M. WHITE and PERRY C. WALTON
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1987-05-05
Citations: 319 N.C. 413
Docket Number: No. 107PA86
Parties: DORIS ELLIS, ETHEL YOUNG, EUGENE YOUNG, DOROTHY PATTERSON, and CENTRAL PARK TENANTS ASSOCIATION v. PETER P. WILLIAMS, HENRY D. HAYWOOD, and ALFRED L. HOBGOOD, JR., d/b/a CENTRAL PARK ASSOCIATES; JOEL M. WHITE and PERRY C. WALTON
Judges: Justice WHICHARD did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 319
Pages: 413–422

Head Matter:
DORIS ELLIS, ETHEL YOUNG, EUGENE YOUNG, DOROTHY PATTERSON, and CENTRAL PARK TENANTS ASSOCIATION v. PETER P. WILLIAMS, HENRY D. HAYWOOD, and ALFRED L. HOBGOOD, JR., d/b/a CENTRAL PARK ASSOCIATES; JOEL M. WHITE and PERRY C. WALTON
No. 107PA86
(Filed 5 May 1987)
Appeal and Error 8 24— appeal from summary judgment — exceptions and assignments of error not required
Rule 10(a) of the N. C. Rules of Appellate Procedure does not require a party against whom summary judgment has been entered to place exceptions and assignments of error into the record on appeal even where summary judgment was granted on several different causes of action since the appeal itself is an exception to the entry of summary judgment and presents the question of whether the judgment is supported by the conclusions of law.
Justice Whichard did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
Justice Meyer dissenting.
On plaintiffs Ellis, Young, and Patterson’s petition for discretionary review of the decision of the Court of Appeals, 78 N.C. App. 433, 337 S.E. 2d 188 (1985), dismissing plaintiffs’ appeal from summary judgment filed 21 December 1984 by Lee, J., in Superior Court, WAKE County. Central Park Tenants Association is not a party to this appeal. Heard in the Supreme Court 12 February 1987.
East Central Community Legal Services, by Celia Pistolis and Augustus S. Anderson, Jr., and Purser, Cheshire, Parker & Hughes, by Gordon Widenhouse, for plaintiff-appellants.
Stubbs, Cole, Breedlove, Prentis & Poe, by James A. Cole, Jr. and Terry D. Fisher, for defendant-appellees.

Opinion:
MARTIN, Justice.
The sole issue before this Court is whether Rule 10(a) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure requires a party against whom summary judgment has been entered to place exceptions and assignments of error into the record on appeal. We hold that it does not and accordingly reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Plaintiff-tenants live in a mobile home park in Wake County. Ownership of the park changed hands in 1984, and defendant-purchasers presented plaintiffs with new lease agreements. These new agreements promulgated stricter park rules, required a higher security deposit, and more than doubled the rent charged. After unsuccessfully attempting to negotiate with defendants, plaintiffs brought this action seeking an injunction against enforcement of the lease, a declaratory judgment invalidating certain lease provisions, and damages for unfair business practices. Their complaint alleged, inter alia, that the park was subject to rent-control regulations of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development and that defendants had engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices by conspiring to raise rents without federal approval. All parties filed motions for summary judgment.
The trial court granted summary judgment in defendants' favor. Plaintiffs gave notice of appeal but failed to list any exceptions or assignments of error in preparing the record for the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals determined that this omission constituted a "flagrant violation" of Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(a) and consequently dismissed the action. Plaintiffs maintain (1) that prior decisions of the Court of Appeals correctly applied Rule 10(a) by holding that the appeal itself is an exception to the entry of summary judgment and (2) that they reasonably relied on these decisions and should be allowed the opportunity to amend their record on appeal should this Court reject the reasoning of the prior cases.
N.C.R. App. P. 10(a) states:
Except as otherwise provided in this Rule 10, the scope of review on appeal is confined to a consideration of those exceptions set out in the record on appeal or in the verbatim transcript of proceedings, if one is filed pursuant to Rule 9(c)(2), and made the basis of assignments of error in the record on appeal in accordance with this Rule 10. No exception not so set out may be made the basis of an assignment of error; and no exception so set out which is not made the basis of an assignment of error may be considered on appeal. Provided, that upon any appeal duly taken from a final judgment any party to the appeal may present for review, by properly raising them in his brief, the questions whether the judgment is supported by the verdict or by the findings of fact and conclusions of law, whether the court had jurisdiction of the subject matter, and whether a criminal charge is sufficient in law, notwithstanding the absence of exceptions or assignments of error in the record on appeal.
(Emphases added.)
Plaintiffs contend that their appeal falls within the language of the proviso. They insist that an appeal from the granting of summary judgment automatically raises the issue of "whether the judgment is supported by the . . . conclusions of law." We agree.
The purpose of summary judgment is to eliminate formal trial when the only questions involved are questions of law. Caldwell v. Deese, 288 N.C. 375, 218 S.E. 2d 379 (1975); Kessing v. Mortgage Corp., 278 N.C. 523, 180 S.E. 2d 823 (1971). Thus, although the enumeration of findings of fact and conclusions of law is technically unnecessary and generally inadvisable in summary judgment cases, Wall v. Wall, 24 N.C. App. 725, 212 S.E. 2d 238, cert. denied, 287 N.C. 264, 214 S.E. 2d 437 (1975), summary judgment, by definition, is always based on two underlying questions of law: (1) whether there is a genuine issue of material fact and (2) whether the moving party is entitled to judgment, N.C.R. Civ. P. 56(c); Vassey v. Burch, 301 N.C. 68, 269 S.E. 2d 137 (1980). On appeal, review of summary judgment is necessarily limited to whether the trial court's conclusions as to these questions of law were correct ones. It would appear, then, that notice of appeal adequately apprises the opposing party and the appellate court of the limited issues to be reviewed. Exceptions and assignments of error add nothing.
This result does not run afoul of the expressed purpose of Rule 10(a). Exceptions and assignments of error are required in most instances because they aid in sifting through the trial court record and fixing the potential scope of appellate review. See Commentary, Drafting Committee Note, N.C.R. App. R. 10(a). We note that the appellate court must carefully examine the entire record in reviewing a grant of summary judgment. See Singleton v. Stewart, 280 N.C. 460, 186 S.E. 2d 400 (1972); Walton v. Meir, 14 N.C. App. 183, 188 S.E. 2d 56, cert. denied, 281 N.C. 515, 189 S.E. 2d 35 (1972). Because this is so, no preliminary "sifting" of the type contemplated by the rule need be performed. Also, as previously observed, the potential scope of review is already fixed; it is limited to the two questions of law automatically raised by summary judgment. Under these circumstances, exceptions and assignments of error serve no useful purpose. See Singleton v. Stewart, 280 N.C. 460, 186 S.E. 2d 400 (thirty-four assignments of error unnecessary in pinpointing the sole question for decision, which was whether the trial judge correctly allowed defendants' motion for summary judgment; the appellate court must review all allegations and evidence in making this determination). Were we to hold otherwise, plaintiffs would be required to submit assignments of error which merely restate the obvious; for example, "The trial court erred in concluding that no genuine issue of material fact existed and that defendants were entitled to summary judgment in their favor." See, e.g., Lloyd v. Carnation Co., 61 N.C. App. 381, 301 S.E. 2d 414 (1983). At best, this is a superfluous formality.
As plaintiffs correctly point out, several prior decisions of the Court of Appeals have reached this conclusion. See Vernon, Vernon, Wooten, Brown & Andrews, P.A. v. Miller, 73 N.C. App. 295, 326 S.E. 2d 316 (1985) (N.C.R. App. P. 10(a) requires no exceptions or assignments of error when the sole issue on appeal is whether, on the face of the entire record, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment); Beaver v. Hancock, 72 N.C. App. 306, 324 S.E. 2d 294 (1985) (appeal itself complies with Rule 10(a) because it constitutes an exception to the judgment and presents the question of whether the judgment is supported by the conclusions of law); cf. West v. Slick, 60 N.C. App. 345, 299 S.E. 2d 657 (1983), rev'd on other grounds, 313 N.C. 33, 326 S.E. 2d 601 (1985) (appeal of directed verdict is an exception to the underlying conclusions of law).
The Court of Appeals characterized West and Beaver as simple single-issue cases in an attempt to distinguish them from the present case. Regardless of whether such characterization is accurate, we are not persuaded by this reasoning. Even where, as here, summary judgment is granted on several different causes of action, the absence of exceptions and assignments of error in the record does not appreciably complicate the appellate process. As to each cause of action, the sole issue brought forth remains the same — whether the trial court's ruling on summary judgment was supported by the underlying conclusions of law.
Because we find that plaintiffs complied with N.C.R. App. P. 10(a) and are entitled to a hearing of their appeal on its merits, we need not consider exercising our discretion under N.C.R. App. P. 2 to allow an amendment of the record to include exceptions and assignments of error. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed. This case is remanded to that court for review on the merits.
It is so ordered.
Justice WHICHARD did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.