Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2017 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In Re the Foreclosure of a Deed of Trust Executed by Adamsgreen2 sentences2011Based on a previous decision in In re Helms, 55 N.C.App. 68 , 284 S.E.2d 553 (1981), disc. review denied, 305 N.C. 300 , 291 S.E.2d 149 (1982)—in which this Court "determined that the photocopies of the promissory note and deed of trust were sufficient competent evidence to establish the required elements under [the foreclosure statute,]" id. at ___, 693 S.E.2d at 709 (citing Helms , 55 N.C.App. at *731 70-71, 284 S.E.2d at 555 )—the Court in Adams held that "[b]ecause respondents do not dispute that the photocopies are `correct copies' of the original instruments, we conclude that [a foreclos 2011Based on a previous decision in In re Helms, 55 N.C.App. 68 , 284 S.E.2d 553 (1981), disc. review denied, 305 N.C. 300 , 291 S.E.2d 149 (1982)—in which this Court "determined that the photocopies of the promissory note and deed of trust were sufficient competent evidence to establish the required elements under [the foreclosure statute,]" id. at ___, 693 S.E.2d at 709 (citing Helms , 55 N.C.App. at *731 70-71, 284 S.E.2d at 555 )—the Court in Adams held that "[b]ecause respondents do not dispute that the photocopies are `correct copies' of the original instruments, we conclude that [a foreclos | 2 | 2 |
In Re the Foreclosure of a Certain Deed of Trust From Wattsgreen2 sentences2011The scope of the foreclosure hearing before the clerk of court is strictly limited to these four issues because foreclosure under a power of sale provision in a deed of trust is intended to serve as “a means of avoiding lengthy and costly foreclosures by action.” In re Watts, 38 N.C. 1994See In re Watts, 38 N.C.App. 90 , 247 S.E.2d 427 (1978). *328 It is undisputed that Vogel received actual notice of the foreclosure hearing and could have taken advantage of the relief provided in G.S. § 45-21.34, assuming he had grounds, or he could have objected to the method of service. | 2 | 2 |
Fleet National Bank v. Raleigh Oaks Joint Venturegreen2 sentences2014This Court held that “Vogel may not assert the defense in G.S. § -8- 45–21.16(b)(2) since he had actual knowledge of the foreclosure hearing.” Id. at 389–90, 451 S.E.2d at 327 . 2013North Carolina’s “previous foreclosure statute was declared unconstitutional because it did not provide adequate notice of foreclosure and did not provide a foreclosure hearing.” Fleet Nat’l Bank v. Raleigh Oaks Joint Venture, 117 N.C. | 1 | 2 |
Turner v. Blackburngreen2 sentences1994In Turner v. Blackburn, 389 F. Supp. 1250 (W.D.N.C. 1975), our previous foreclosure statute was declared unconstitutional because it did not provide adequate notice of foreclosure and did not provide a foreclosure hearing. 1994In Turner v. Blackburn, 389 F.Supp. 1250 (W.D.N.C.1975), our previous foreclosure statute was declared unconstitutional because it did not provide adequate notice of foreclosure and did not provide a foreclosure hearing. | 1 | 2 |
In Re the Foreclosure of Nortongreen2 sentences2015However, we have rejected a party's argument that a foreclosure order should be set aside on the basis of improper notice when "the record shows that [the party or its attorney was] present at the hearing and participated in it [.]" In re Foreclosure of Brown, 156 N.C.App. 477 , 489, 577 S.E.2d 398 , 406 (2003) ; see In re Foreclosure of Norton, 41 N.C.App. 529 , 531, 255 S.E.2d 287 , 289 (1979) (concluding that a party failed to show prejudice stemming from insufficient notice of a foreclosure hearing when the party was at the hearing). 2015However, we have rejected a party's argument that a foreclosure order should be set aside on the basis of improper notice when "the record shows that [the party or its attorney was] present at the hearing and participated in it [.]" In re Foreclosure of Brown, 156 N.C.App. 477 , 489, 577 S.E.2d 398 , 406 (2003) ; see In re Foreclosure of Norton, 41 N.C.App. 529 , 531, 255 S.E.2d 287 , 289 (1979) (concluding that a party failed to show prejudice stemming from insufficient notice of a foreclosure hearing when the party was at the hearing). | 1 | 1 |
In re Foreclosure of a Deed of Trust Executed by Helmsgreen2 sentences2011Based on a previous decision in In re Helms, 55 N.C.App. 68 , 284 S.E.2d 553 (1981), disc. review denied, 305 N.C. 300 , 291 S.E.2d 149 (1982)—in which this Court "determined that the photocopies of the promissory note and deed of trust were sufficient competent evidence to establish the required elements under [the foreclosure statute,]" id. at ___, 693 S.E.2d at 709 (citing Helms , 55 N.C.App. at *731 70-71, 284 S.E.2d at 555 )—the Court in Adams held that "[b]ecause respondents do not dispute that the photocopies are `correct copies' of the original instruments, we conclude that [a foreclos 2011Based on a previous decision in In re Helms, 55 N.C.App. 68 , 284 S.E.2d 553 (1981), disc. review denied, 305 N.C. 300 , 291 S.E.2d 149 (1982)—in which this Court "determined that the photocopies of the promissory note and deed of trust were sufficient competent evidence to establish the required elements under [the foreclosure statute,]" id. at ___, 693 S.E.2d at 709 (citing Helms , 55 N.C.App. at *731 70-71, 284 S.E.2d at 555 )—the Court in Adams held that "[b]ecause respondents do not dispute that the photocopies are `correct copies' of the original instruments, we conclude that [a foreclos | 1 | 1 |
In Re Michael Weinman Assoc. Gen. Part.green2 sentences1997Id. at 225-26 , 424 S.E.2d at 387 . 1997Id. at 225-26 , 424 S.E.2d at 387 . | 1 | 1 |
Federal Land Bank of Columbia v. Lackeygreen2 sentences1994See Federal Land Bank v. Lackey, 94 N.C.App. 553 , 380 S.E.2d 538 (1989), aff'd per curiam, 326 N.C. 478 , 390 S.E.2d 138 (1990). 1994See Federal Land Bank v. Lackey, 94 N.C.App. 553 , 380 S.E.2d 538 (1989), aff'd per curiam, 326 N.C. 478 , 390 S.E.2d 138 (1990). | 1 | 1 |
Federal Land Bank of Columbia v. Lackeygreen2 sentences1994See Federal Land Bank v. Lackey, 94 N.C.App. 553 , 380 S.E.2d 538 (1989), aff'd per curiam, 326 N.C. 478 , 390 S.E.2d 138 (1990). 1994See Federal Land Bank v. Lackey, 94 N.C.App. 553 , 380 S.E.2d 538 (1989), aff'd per curiam, 326 N.C. 478 , 390 S.E.2d 138 (1990). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
ConnolLy v. Potts
green
2 sentences2011As demonstrated by Connolly , discussed above, production of a note at trial is not conclusive evidence of possession. 63 N.C. 2010Nevertheless, while “ [i]t is the fact of possession which is significant in determining whether a person is a holder, and the absence of possession defeats that status,” see In re Foreclosure of Connolly, 63 N.C. | 2 | 2010–2011 |
In re Lucks
neutral
2 sentences2016The majority noted that “the evidentiary rules are slightly more relaxed in the context of a foreclosure hearing than in normal litigation,” id., 2016 WL 1321155, at *2 , and concluded that the trial court erred by sustaining borrower’s objection to Exhibit 4 “on the basis of lack of ‘proper foundation and hearsay,’ ” id. at *3. 2016The majority noted that “the evidentiary rules are slightly more relaxed in the context of a foreclosure hearing than in normal litigation,” id., 2016 WL 1321155, at *2 , and concluded that the trial court erred by sustaining borrower’s objection to Exhibit 4 “on the basis of lack of ‘proper foundation and hearsay,’ ” id. at *3. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
In Re Foreclosure of Real Property
green
2 sentences2015However, we have rejected a party's argument that a foreclosure order should be set aside on the basis of improper notice when "the record shows that [the party or its attorney was] present at the hearing and participated in it [.]" In re Foreclosure of Brown, 156 N.C.App. 477 , 489, 577 S.E.2d 398 , 406 (2003) ; see In re Foreclosure of Norton, 41 N.C.App. 529 , 531, 255 S.E.2d 287 , 289 (1979) (concluding that a party failed to show prejudice stemming from insufficient notice of a foreclosure hearing when the party was at the hearing). 2015However, we have rejected a party's argument that a foreclosure order should be set aside on the basis of improper notice when "the record shows that [the party or its attorney was] present at the hearing and participated in it [.]" In re Foreclosure of Brown, 156 N.C.App. 477 , 489, 577 S.E.2d 398 , 406 (2003) ; see In re Foreclosure of Norton, 41 N.C.App. 529 , 531, 255 S.E.2d 287 , 289 (1979) (concluding that a party failed to show prejudice stemming from insufficient notice of a foreclosure hearing when the party was at the hearing). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Greeson v. Byrd
green
2 sentences2011Based on a previous decision in In re Helms, 55 N.C.App. 68 , 284 S.E.2d 553 (1981), disc. review denied, 305 N.C. 300 , 291 S.E.2d 149 (1982)—in which this Court "determined that the photocopies of the promissory note and deed of trust were sufficient competent evidence to establish the required elements under [the foreclosure statute,]" id. at ___, 693 S.E.2d at 709 (citing Helms , 55 N.C.App. at *731 70-71, 284 S.E.2d at 555 )—the Court in Adams held that "[b]ecause respondents do not dispute that the photocopies are `correct copies' of the original instruments, we conclude that [a foreclos 2011Based on a previous decision in In re Helms, 55 N.C.App. 68 , 284 S.E.2d 553 (1981), disc. review denied, 305 N.C. 300 , 291 S.E.2d 149 (1982)—in which this Court "determined that the photocopies of the promissory note and deed of trust were sufficient competent evidence to establish the required elements under [the foreclosure statute,]" id. at ___, 693 S.E.2d at 709 (citing Helms , 55 N.C.App. at *731 70-71, 284 S.E.2d at 555 )—the Court in Adams held that "[b]ecause respondents do not dispute that the photocopies are `correct copies' of the original instruments, we conclude that [a foreclos | 1 | 2011–2011 |
In re Foreclosure of Deed of Trust
neutral
1 sentence2011Based on a previous decision in In re Helms, 55 N.C.App. 68 , 284 S.E.2d 553 (1981), disc. review denied, 305 N.C. 300 , 291 S.E.2d 149 (1982)—in which this Court "determined that the photocopies of the promissory note and deed of trust were sufficient competent evidence to establish the required elements under [the foreclosure statute,]" id. at ___, 693 S.E.2d at 709 (citing Helms , 55 N.C.App. at *731 70-71, 284 S.E.2d at 555 )—the Court in Adams held that "[b]ecause respondents do not dispute that the photocopies are `correct copies' of the original instruments, we conclude that [a foreclos | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.