An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute
controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance
with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
Filed: 16 May 2006
CHARLES A. SNOW AND WIFE
ALICE D. SNOW,
No. 03 CVS 591
COUNTY OF DARE,
Appeal by defendant from summary judgment entered 28 June 2005
by Judge John B. Lewis in Dare County Superior Court.
Heard in the
Court of Appeals 22 March 2006.
The Brough Law Firm, by Robert E. Hornik, Jr. and T. C.
Morphis, Jr., for plaintiff-appellees.
Sharp Michael Outten and Graham, LLP, by Robert L. Outten, for
Plaintiffs filed a complaint on 5 December 2003 seeking a
purported subdivision of their property. Plaintiffs filed a motion
for summary judgment on 5 November 2004, and this motion was
granted in favor of plaintiffs on 28 June 2005.
granting summary judgment, defendant appeals.
From this order
preserved its arguments for appeal.
In light of prior holdings of
the appellate courts of this state, we hold it has not.
Defendant has included two assignments of error in the record,
which read in total as follows:
1. The trial court erred in granting summary
judgment in favor of Plaintiff.
2. The trial court erred in failing to grant
summary judgment in favor of Defendant.
These assignments of error violate Rule 10(c)(1) of the North
Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure in that they fail to state
any legal basis upon which error is assigned.
They do “no more
than duplicate the notice of appeal and, thus, also [do] not serve
[their] function of limiting our scope of review.” Broderick v.
Broderick, __ N.C. App. __, __, 623 S.E.2d 806, 807 (2006).
light of our Supreme Court’s decision in Viar v. N.C. DOT, 359 N.C.
400, 610 S.E.2d 360 (2005), this Court has held that it must
dismiss an appeal based on assignments of error that fail to state
the legal basis upon which error is assigned. Broderick, __ N.C.
Beulaville, Inc., __ N.C. App. __, 623 S.E.2d 345 (2006).
of this precedent, we are compelled to dismiss this appeal. In re
Civil Penalty, 324 N.C. 373, 384, 379 S.E.2d 30, 37 (1989).
Judges ELMORE and JACKSON concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).