Court Opinion

ID: 9574647
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:06:41.631235+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:45.811401
License: Public Domain

Justice Frye
dissenting.
I dissent from the majority’s holding “that the Court of Appeals erred in treating plaintiffs’ interlocutory appeal as a petition for certiorari and considering the appeal.”
*313After making detailed findings of fact, the trial judge concluded as follows: “Any rights of the plaintiffs in the lands owned by A. E. Kirkman at the time of his death, as vested remaindermen under the Will of A. E. Kirkman, have been extinguished by Chapter 47B of the General Statutes of North Carolina (Real Property Marketable Title Act).” Judge Winberry then “ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND Decreed that the plaintiffs have and recover nothing of these defendants, that the Notice of Lis Pendens heretofore filed in this action be stricken from the record and the costs of this action be Taxed to the plaintiffs.” From this judgment plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, with Judge Greene dissenting on the question of whether the Marketable Title Act was intended to eliminate vested remainders.
The majority concludes that a decision on this record would constitute an advisory opinion on abstract questions. As I read the trial court’s judgment, it resolves the primary question before the court, which is, whether the Marketable Title Act deprived plaintiffs of any claim to the property at issue. The order is neither advisory nor abstract but clearly provides that plaintiffs “have and recover nothing of these defendants” and orders that the notice of lis pendens be stricken from the record. I believe that the issues are ripe for decision. Sending the case back for the parties to start all over again is not in the interest of judicial economy.