Court Opinion

ID: 9579355
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:54:20.320876+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:28.318898
License: Public Domain

Judge Wells
dissenting.
At the time the second note — the deed of trust note —was executed, no new money was advanced. The new note was a demand note, and, therefore, there was no foreclosure as to the debt. The “foreclosure” relied upon by the majority took place months before the second note and deed of trust were executed. I find the evidence to show a lack of consideration for the second note, and conclude that the trial court’s necessary finding (labeled as a conclusion) of a valid debt, see G.S. 42-21.16(a) is not supported by the evidence. I must therefore respectfully dissent.