Court Opinion

ID: 9614343
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:24:31.281711+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:35.320036
License: Public Domain

McGEE, Judge,
dissenting.
I do not believe this case should be dismissed and I therefore respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. I believe this case should be heard on its merits and I would impose on Defendants the printing costs of the appeal.
The majority correctly recognizes that our Supreme Court, in State v. Hart, 361 N.C. 309, 644 S.E.2d 201 (2007), recently clarified its precedent related to violations of the Rules of Appellate Procedure: “[W]hen this Court said an appeal is ‘subject to’ dis*623missal for rules violations, it did not mean that an appeal shall be dismissed for any violation. Rather, ‘subject to’ means that dismissal is one possible sanction.” Id. at 313, 644 S.E.2d at 203 (citation omitted), The majority also correctly recognizes that in Hart, our Supreme Court stated that some sanction, other than dismissal, may be appropriate for rules violations. Id. at 311, 644 S.E.2d at 202. However, I believe the majority incorrectly concludes that dismissal is the appropriate sanction for Defendants’ violations of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
In Peverall v. County of Alamance, 184 N.C. App. 88, 645 S.E.2d 416 (2007), and McKinley Bldg. Corp. v. Alvis, 183 N.C. App. 500, 645 S.E.2d 219 (2007), both decided after Hart, our Court declined to dismiss the cases based upon multiple violations of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. In Peverall, the appellant violated Rule 28(b)(6) by failing to provide the applicable standards of review and by failing to cite authority supporting the appropriate standards of review. Peverall, 184 N.C. App. at 91, 645 S.E.2d at 418. The appellant in Peverall also violated Rule 28(b)(6) and Rule 10(c)(1) because the appellant’s assignments of error in the record and brief incorrectly referenced the record. Id. at 91-2, 645 S.E.2d at 418-19.
In McKinley, the appellants violated Rule 28(b)(4) by failing to cite a statute permitting appellate review. McKinley, 183 N.C. App. at 503-04, 645 S.E.2d at 221. The appellants violated Rule 28(b)(6) by failing to define their proposed standard of review and by failing to cite legal authority in support of that standard of review. Id. at 504, 645 S.E.2d at 221. The appellants in McKinley also violated Rule 28(b)(6) and Rule 10(c)(1) by failing to provide record and transcript references in support of their lone assignment of error. Id. at 504, 645 S.E.2d at 221.
Nevertheless, in both Peverall and McKinley, our Court determined that the violations of the Rules of Appellate Procedure were not sufficiently egregious to warrant dismissal. Peverall, 184 N.C. App. at 92, 645 S.E.2d at 419; McKinley, 183 N.C. App. at 504, 645 S.E.2d at 221. Rather, in both cases, our Court ordered the appellants to pay the printing costs of the appeal and, without engaging in a Rule 2 analysis, then addressed the merits. Peverall, 184 N.C. App. at 92-4, 645 S.E.2d at 419-22; McKinley, 183 N.C. App. at 504-08, 645 S.E.2d at 221-25.
In the present case, Defendants’ rules violations are similar to the violations at issue in Peverall and McKinley. As in Peverall and *624McKinley, I do not believe that the violations in the present case warrant the dismissal of Defendants’ appeal. I would impose monetary sanctions on Defendants in the form of the printing costs of the appeal. Having reached the merits, I would affirm the order of the trial court.