Preview:

An  unpublished  opinion  of  the  North  Carolina  Court  of  Appeals  does  not  constitute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. COA08-763
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
Filed:  7 April  2009
EVAN SMITH and BERNADINE SMITH,
Plaintiffs,
v.                                                                                              Mecklenburg County
                                                                                                No.  04 CVS  21571
KEVIN ALFRED ADAMS
And PARKS CHEVROLET, INC.,
Defendants.
Appeal by Plaintiffs from judgment entered 14 March 2008 nunc
pro  tunc  4  June                                                                              by  Judge  W.  Robert  Bell  in  Superior  Court,
Mecklenburg County.    Heard in the Court of Appeals  9 March  2009.
Evan Smith & Bernadine Smith, pro se.
No brief filed for defendants.
WYNN, Judge.
This  appeal  is  most  difficult  to  evaluate  because  numerous
violations of the Rules of Appellate Procedure and omissions from
the Record on Appeal and brief make it all but unreviewable.  1
1
The Record on Appeal is not consecutively paginated as
mandated by Rule  9(b)(4); the assignments of error do not appear
in the Record on Appeal pursuant to Rules  9(a)(1)(k) and  10(c)(1)
but are instead included in a section of Plaintiffs’ brief; and
there is no indication that the Record on Appeal was settled in
accordance with Rule  11.    See Higgins v. Town of China Grove,  102
N.C. App.  570,  402 S.E.2d  885  (1991)  (dismissing appeal, in part,




-2-
However,  we  dismiss  appeals                                                 “only  in  the  most  egregious
instances  of  non-jurisdictional  default  .  .  .                            .”    Dogwood  Dev.  &
Mgmt.  Co.,  LLC  v.  White  Oak  Transp.  Co.,  362  N.C.  191,  200,  657
S.E.2d  361,  366  (2008)  (citation  omitted).    Although  this  appeal
surely meets that test, we will attempt to search merits given the
efforts of the pro se litigants to seek vindication for what they
contend  was  a  breach  of  a  contract  to  perform  repairs  by  Parks
Chevrolet,  Inc.  on  a  car  owned  by  Evan  Smith,  a  college  student.
Apparently, Evan Smith’s mother, Bernadine Smith, attempted to join
in  the  lawsuit  as  a  plaintiff  but  the  trial  court  found  that  she
lacked standing to do so.    Ultimately, the trial court directed a
verdict  for  Parks  Chevrolet,  Inc.  after  Evan  Smith  finished  with
the presentation of his case.
At best, we can decipher two possible issues in this appeal -
whether  the  trial  court  erred  by  (I)  dismissing  Bernadine  Smith
from  the  case  because  of  a  lack  of  standing  and  (II)  granting  a
directed verdict in favor of Parks Chevrolet, Inc. at the close of
Evan Smith’s evidence.    Summarily, we find no error.
for failure to settle and serve the Record on Appeal).
Likewise, Plaintiffs’ brief does not comply with Rule  28.
For example, Plaintiffs list assignments of error in their brief
instead of the Record on Appeal in violation of Rule  28(b)(6)
(“Immediately following each question shall be a reference to the
assignments of error pertinent to the question, identified by
their numbers and by the pages at which they appear in the
printed record on appeal.”).    The assignments of error fail to
“state plainly, concisely, and without argumentation the legal
basis upon which error is assigned.”    N.C. R. App. P.  10(c)(1).
Furthermore, the bulk of the argument consists of bare assertions
unsupported by citations.    See N.C. R. App. P.  28(b)(6).




-3-
(I)
Regarding  Bernadine  Smith,  a  party  asserting  standing  must
show three elements:
(1)  “injury in fact”-an invasion of a legally
protected  interest  that  is                                                  (a)  concrete  and
particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not
conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is
fairly  traceable  to  the  challenged  action  of
the  defendant;  and                                                           (3)  it  is  likely,  as
opposed to merely speculative, that the injury
will be redressed by a favorable decision.
Neuse River Found., Inc. v. Smithfield Foods, Inc.,  155 N.C. App.
110,  114,  574 S.E.2d  48,  52  (2002), disc. review denied,  356 N.C.
675,  577 S.E.2d  628-29  (2003).
At  trial,  Bernadine  Smith  failed  to  produce  proof  of  any
ownership interest in the car, alleging only that she purchased the
car  for  Evan  Smith.    Indeed,  the  only  proof  of  ownership  was  the
purchase  agreement  showing  Evan  Smith’s  name.                             Accordingly,
Bernadine Smith demonstrated no “legally protected interest” in the
car in accordance with the first element of standing, and we find
no  error  in  the  trial  court’s  ruling.    See  Beachcomber  Props.,
L.L.C. v. Station One, Inc., 169 N.C. App. 820,  823-24, 611 S.E.2d
191,  193-94  (2005)  (holding that plaintiff failed to show  “injury
in fact” sufficient to confer standing where it was not a party to
a contract to purchase or the owner of the property in question).
(II)
Regarding the second issue, whether the trial court erred by
granting  a  directed  verdict  for  Parks  Chevrolet,  Inc.,  it  is
apparent  that  Evan  Smith  failed  to  provide  sufficient  proof  of
damages.                                                                       “On  appeal,  the  standard  of  review  on  a  motion  for




-4-
directed verdict is whether, upon examination of all the evidence
in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and that party
being  given  the  benefit  of  every  reasonable  inference  drawn
therefrom, the evidence is sufficient to be submitted to the jury.”
Brookshire  v.  N.C.  Dept.  of  Transp.,  Div.  of  Motor  Vehicles,  180
N.C.  App.                                                                   670,                                 672,   637  S.E.2d   902,   904   (2006)   (citation  and
quotation marks omitted).
In granting the directed verdict, the trial judge explained to
Evan Smith that he needed to show proof of “the difference between
the value of the car after it was repaired, and what the value of
the  car  should  have  been  if  it  had  been  repaired  correctly.”
Accord Troitino v. Goodman,  225 N.C.  406,  413,  35 S.E.2d  277,  282
(1945) (proper measure of damages for breach of contract to deliver
used  tractors  in  condition  for  immediate  use  was  “the  difference
between the value of the [tractors] as delivered and what the value
would have been if they had been put in first class condition for
immediate  use  as  promised                                                 .”);  McBride  v.  Apache  Camping
Center,  Inc.,  36  N.C.  App.  370,  373,  243  S.E.2d  913,  915  (1978)
(submission to jury of  “diminution in market value” as element of
damages  for  breach  of  contract  to  repair  motor  home  was  proper).
The evidence in the transcript and the record provides no basis to
calculate that measure of damages.
Accordingly,  we  affirm  the  trial  court’s  grant  of  directed
verdict for Parks Chevrolet, Inc.
Affirmed.
Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge ERVIN concur.




-5-
Report per Rule  30(e).

Download 08-763-5.pdf

South Carolina Law