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An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA06-1706 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS FILED: 4 December 2007 THE WESLEY LONG NURSING CENTER, INC. D/B/A The MOSES CONE EXTENDED CARE CENTER, Plaintiff, v. ESTELL HARPER, Defendant. Guilford County No. 06 CVD 3889

Court of Appeals Slip Opinion
P.A., by Michael T. Marshall, for

Appeal by defendant Estell Harper from order entered 24 October 2006 by Judge Susan E. Bray in District Court, Guilford County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 30 August 2007.

Michael T. Marshall, plaintiff-appellee.

Barbara Gore Washington for defendant-appellant. STROUD, Judge. Plaintiff sued defendant Estell Harper to recover the costs of providing necessary medical services to defendant's wife. On or

about 15 August 2006 plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted on 24 October 2006 in favor of plaintiff. The

dispositive question before this Court is whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for plaintiff based upon the necessaries doctrine. For the following reasons, we affirm. I. Background

-2Plaintiff provided necessary nursing services, medical

services, and medical supplies to Carrie W. Harper ("decedent") from approximately 24 January 2005 until 30 November 2005.

Defendant was decedent's spouse at the time plaintiff provided decedent with medical care. On or about 20 February 2006, plaintiff filed a complaint to recover $34,730.87, the alleged amount of decedent's medical

expenses, with interest, from defendant.

Defendant filed an

unverified answer, admitting that plaintiff had provided necessary medical services and supplies to decedent and that decedent was his spouse. Defendant's answer denied the amount of the debt and his

responsibility for it and requested verification of the account balance. On or about 15 August 2006 plaintiff filed a motion for

summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, accompanied by a verified affidavit of statement of account. Defendant filed an opposing affidavit which alleged

only that he did not owe the plaintiff any money, that he had not been a patient at the plaintiff's facility, and that the estate of the decedent is responsible for the payment of the debt. On 24

October 2006, Judge Susan E. Bray granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. Defendant appeals. II. Standard of Review

On appeal, our standard of review for an order granting summary judgment is de novo. Summary judgment is only appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact and [any party] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In considering summary judgment motions, we review the record in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. The

-3entry of summary judgment presupposes that there are no issues of material fact. Winding Ridge Homeowners Ass'n v. Joffe, ___ N.C. App. ___, ___, 646 S.E.2d 801, 804 (2007) (internal citations and quotations omitted); see also N.C. Gen. Stat.

Download 06-1706-5.pdf

South Carolina Law