JDavis Architects, PLLC v Lake Raleigh/Davis LLC, et al
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. NO. COA11-737 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 20 December 2011 JDAVIS ARCHITECTS, PLLC, Plaintiff, v. Wake County No. 09 CVS 11447 LAKE RALEIGH/DAVIS LLC, CRAIG DAVIS PROPERTIES, INC., and BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE ENDOWMENT FUND OF NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY, Defendants. Appeal by plaintiff from order entered 24 January 2011 by Judge Lucy N. Inman in Wake County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 14 November 2011. W. Sidney Aldridge for Nicholls & Crampton, P.A., attorney for plaintiff. E.D. Gaskins for Everett Gaskins & Hancock, attorney for appellees Lake Raleigh/Davis LLC, Craig Davis Properties, Inc., Craig Davis. Attorney General Roy Cooper by Special Deputy Attorney General I. Faison Hicks for appellee Board of Trustees of the Endowment Fund of North Carolina State University. Elmore, Judge. -2JDavis Architects, Inc. (plaintiff), appeals an order granting a motion to dismiss and a motion for judgment on the pleadings in favor of the Board of Trustees of the Endowment Fund of North Carolina State University (defendant BOT). After careful consideration, we dismiss. Plaintiff Raleigh) and was hired Craig by Davis Lake Raleigh/Davis Properties, Inc. LLC (CDP), to (Lake perform design services for a project to be built on a portion of land (the property) University. on At Centennial that time, Campus Lake at Raleigh leasehold interest in the property. reversionary plaintiff Chapter interest filed 44A of a the North the property. labor and materialman s Carolina held a State long-term Defendant BOT held the in North Carolina On General 29 lien January 2009 pursuant Statutes on to Lake Raleigh s leasehold interest in the property. On 10 June 2009, plaintiff filed suit against Lake Raleigh and CDP. Defendant BOT was also included in the lawsuit. In its complaint, plaintiff alleged that it was owed $471,183.30 for services performed on the property. Plaintiff requested 1) a judgment in that amount and 2) that Lake Raleigh s leasehold interest in the property be sold, and the proceeds of the sale be applied to the judgment. On 9 September 2010, defendant BOT -3filed a motion to dismiss and a motion for judgment on the pleadings. In that motion defendant BOT argued that 1) the forced sale of any leasehold interest would interfere with its fee interest in the property and 2) that plaintiff has failed to state a claim against defendant BOT upon which relief can be granted. On 24 January 2011, the trial court entered an order granting the motion to dismiss and motion for judgment on the pleadings in favor of defendant BOT. In that order, the trial court concluded that 1) it was without constitutional authority to order a judgment of lien on a leasehold interest in the property, 2) that the forced sale of a leasehold interest in the property would interfere with and encumber defendant BOT s fee interest in the property and 3) that plaintiff failed to state a cause of action against defendant BOT. Plaintiff now appeals. Plaintiff presents four arguments for our consideration. However, after careful review of the record, we dismiss plaintiff s appeal as interlocutory. An order or judgment is interlocutory if it is made during the pendency of an action and does not dispose of the case but requires further action by the trial court in order to finally determine the entire controversy. Howerton v. Grace Hosp., 124 -4N.C. App. 199, 201, 476 S.E.2d 440, 442 (1996) (citation omitted). Here, the trial against defendant BOT. court s order dismissed the suit only Plaintiff admits in its brief that it only included defendant BOT in the suit as a means to give [defendant BOT] notice of the lien rights of [plaintiff] claimed in the leasehold interest[.] Plaintiff s claims against Lake Raleigh and CDP are still pending with the trial court. The trial court has yet to decide 1) whether plaintiff is owed any compensation from Lake Raleigh or CDP and 2) whether to enforce a lien on the property. Accordingly, we conclude that plaintiff s appeal would be appropriate only following a final judgment of the trial court regarding the underlying dispute. Dismissed. Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge STEPHENS concur. Report per Rule 30(e).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
