Court Opinion

ID: 9846708
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:46:25.090223+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:45.465088
License: Public Domain

HUNTER, Judge,
dissenting.
I disagree with the majority’s decision that defendant’s appeal must be dismissed for appellate rules violations. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent. Moreover, after careful review of the assignments of error, I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The majority holds that defendant failed to comply with the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure, specifically Rule 10 by including assignments of error which do not plainly state the legal basis on which defendant relies, and Rule 28 by failing to include the applicable standard of review. Although this Court has previously dismissed appeals for failure to properly state the legal basis, this Court has also elected to review assignments of error that do not strictly comply with Rule 10 when the legal basis can be inferred. See Duke v. Hill, 68 N.C. App. 261, 264, 314 S.E.2d 586, 588 (1984) (noting that although the assignments of error did not comply with Rule 10, the Court “accepted] them as maintaining that the findings were erroneous in that they were not supported by evidence” and reviewed the issue); compare Broderick v. Broderick, 175 N.C. 501, 503, 623 S.E.2d 806, 807 (2006) (dismissing the appeal for failure to follow Rule 10 and provide a legal basis, where the sole assignment of error stated “ ‘Plaintiff-Appellant assigns as error the following: Entry of the Order for Modification of Alimony filed October 7, 2004’ ”).
Here, defendant brings forward on appeal the following assignments of error:
*6793. The trial court erred in its Finding of Fact #8a that Plaintiffs expert, Frank Plunkett, was qualified to appraise real property.
4. The trial court erred in its Finding of Fact #8a that the value of the 8.90 acre tract was $52,000.
5. The trial court erred in its finding of Fact #8b that the value of the 25.63 acre tract was $72,000.
7. The trial court erred in its Finding of Fact #8d that the value of the Bennett Farms partnership is -0-.
11. The trial court erred in its Finding of Fact #10b in classifying the debts of the Bennett Farms partnership as marital debt.
12. The trial court erred in its Findings of Fact #10d in classifying the debts of the Bennett Farms partnership as marital debt.
13. The trial court erred in its Finding of Fact #l-ld in classifying the debts of the Bennett Farms partnership as marital debt.
Similar to Duke, defendant here identifies the factual issue contested in the assignments of error, but does not tell “what the claimed legal errors were nor why they were erroneous.” Duke, 68 N.C. App. at 264, 314 S.E.2d at 588. However, the assignments of error provide sufficient information to permit the Court to accept that the legal basis for defendant’s appeal included a challenge to the acceptance of an expert witness, that insufficient evidence was presented to support certain of the trial court’s findings, and that the trial court erred in its legal classification of the property. Therefore, review of these assignments of error does not create an appeal for defendant as prohibited by Viar v. N.C. Dep’t of Transp., 359 N.C. 400, 402, 610 S.E.2d 360, 361, rehearing denied, 359 N.C. 643, 617 S.E.2d 662 (2005). Additionally, plaintiff does not contend in his brief that defendant’s assignments of error were insufficient to permit a determination of the legal basis for the appeal.
Thus, in this case, plaintiff was neither disadvantaged nor was the Court unduly burdened by the imprecise wording of defendant’s assignments of error and failure to include the standard of review. Rather than the harsh remedy of dismissing the appeal, I would elect *680to review the merits of the issues under Rule 2, and sanction defendant’s attorney pursuant to Rule 25(b) for loose drafting of the assignments of error and failure to comply with our appellate rules.