entitlement rule in North Carolina

2010The entitlement rule provides an equitable framework for placing losses during escrow transactions on “the party who was entitled to the property at the time of the . . . embezzlement.” Id. at 432 , 442 S.E.2d at 100 .

2010Second, because the parties did not engage in an escrow closing, the entitlement rule applied in GE Capital Mortgage Services, Inc. v. Avent, 114 N.C.

2026The logic here is simple: when a governmental actor asserts sovereign immunity, “the entitlement is an immunity from suit . . . and it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial.” Id. (cleaned up).

2024The denial of a motion for judgment on the pleadings “on grounds of sovereign immunity is immediately appealable, though interlocutory, because it represents a substantial right, as the entitlement is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; and . . . it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial.” Craig, 363 N.C. at 338 , 678 S.E.2d at 354 (citation, quotation marks, and alterations omitted).

2026Thus, the denial of a motion for summary judgment or a motion to dismiss based on immunity “unquestionably affects a substantial right” because, “if the governmental agency were forced to litigate the case to judgment before appealing the immunity ruling, it could deprive the government of its right not to have to appear in court and defend the case at all.” Ballard v. Shelley, 257 N.C. App. 561, 564 (2018) (emphasis added).

2024“Nevertheless, this Court has declined to address interlocutory appeals of a lower court’s denial of a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss despite the movant’s reliance upon the doctrine of sovereign immunity.” Green v. Kearney, 203 N.C. App. 260 , 265- 66, 690 S.E.2d 755, 760 (2010).

2024“Nevertheless, this Court has declined to address interlocutory appeals of a lower court’s denial of a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss despite the movant’s reliance upon the doctrine of sovereign immunity.” Green v. Kearney, 203 N.C. App. 260 , 265- 66, 690 S.E.2d 755, 760 (2010).

2010The court in Avent stated that its application of the entitlement rule was "consistent with the equitable principle that where one of two persons must suffer loss by the fraud or misconduct of a third person, he who first reposes the confidence or by his negligent conduct made it possible for the loss to occur, must bear the loss." 114 N.C.App. at 435 , 442 S.E.2d at 101 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Zimmerman v. Hogg & Allen, P.A., 286 N.C. 24, 30 , 209 S.E.2d 795, 799 (1974) (alterations in original) (citations omitted)).

2010The court in Avent stated that its application of the entitlement rule was "consistent with the equitable principle that where one of two persons must suffer loss by the fraud or misconduct of a third person, he who first reposes the confidence or by his negligent conduct made it possible for the loss to occur, must bear the loss." 114 N.C.App. at 435 , 442 S.E.2d at 101 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Zimmerman v. Hogg & Allen, P.A., 286 N.C. 24, 30 , 209 S.E.2d 795, 799 (1974) (alterations in original) (citations omitted)).

2002In Exum v. Boyles, 272 N.C. 567, 576 , 158 S.E.2d 845, 853 (1968), our Supreme Court addressed a plaintiff’s entitlement to an instruction on last clear chance and wrote: [T]o bring into play the doctrine of last clear chance, there must be proof that after the plaintiff had, by his own negligence, gotten into a position of helpless peril. .. the defendant discovered the plaintiff’s helpless peril... or, being under a duty to do so, should have, and, thereafter, the defendant, having the means and time to avoid the injury, negligently failed to do so.

2002In Exum v. Boyles, 272 N.C. 567, 576 , 158 S.E.2d 845, 853 (1968), our Supreme Court addressed a plaintiff’s entitlement to an instruction on last clear chance and wrote: [T]o bring into play the doctrine of last clear chance, there must be proof that after the plaintiff had, by his own negligence, gotten into a position of helpless peril. .. the defendant discovered the plaintiff’s helpless peril... or, being under a duty to do so, should have, and, thereafter, the defendant, having the means and time to avoid the injury, negligently failed to do so.