Court Opinion

ID: 9850942
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:04:50.982979+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:46.012226
License: Public Domain

Judge Wynn
dissenting.
I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that this case must be remanded to allow the plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint to name the sheriff’s surety. As the majority states, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 58-76-5 (1994), as interpreted by Messick v. Catawba County, 110 N.C. App. 707, 431 S.E.2d 489, cert. denied, 334 N.C. 621, 435 S.E.2d 336 (1993), provides that a sheriff’s immunity is only removed where the surety is joined as a party to the action, but that the failure to join the surety as a party to an action could easily be corrected by amendment.
In this case, plaintiff filed his complaint on 11 January 1996; defendants moved to dismiss and answered on 15 March 1996; the trial court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss on 13 May 1996. During this entire time period of over five months, plaintiff never sought to amend his complaint to meet the requirements of N.C.G.S. § 58-76-5, as interpreted by Messick. Thus, plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proving that the sheriff and his deputy waived their sovereign immunity or otherwise consented to suit. Without this allegation in his complaint, plaintiff’s action must be dismissed.
Plaintiff contends that he was unable to name the surety at the time the complaint was filed and that the surety could only be added after discovery. This explanation defies the common knowledge that the name of a sheriffs surety is a matter of public record and therefore should be easily discoverable. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 162-8 (1994) requires the sheriff to furnish a bond payable to the State of North Carolina. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 58-72-50 (1994) requires that the bond be deposited with the clerk of superior court. If the sheriff’s surety is a company rather than an individual, then N.C. Gen. Stat. § 58-73-1 (1994) requires that the bond be accompanied with a statement of the Insurance Commissioner as to the financial condition of the company as required by law. Since the name of the surety could have been *625determined rather easily, it would not have been a hardship for plaintiff to find out that information and amend his complaint joining the surety as a party. In fact, plaintiff concedes in his brief that “he could have begun his discovery at an earlier date.” Instead, even to this date, plaintiff has neither presented material alleging that defendants had waived immunity nor moved to add the surety as a party.
In sum, Messick and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 58-76-5 require that “the protective embrace of governmental immunity [is removed] only . . . where the surety is joined as a party.” Messick, 110 N.C. App. at 715, 431 S.E.2d at 494. Plaintiff, however, made no attempt to amend his action contending that he “still had plenty of time ... to move to . . . join the surety as a party of this action.” The requirement of naming the surety in an action against a sheriff is clear cut and jurisdictional. And while we permit the liberal amendment of actions to conform with this requirement, to do so in this case amounts to an abuse of the system. Since the name of a sheriffs surety is easily discoverable, absent some compelling reason showing why the complaint was not amended prior to the denying of the motion to dismiss, I would not allow an amendment of this action at this time. Accordingly, I dissent.