insurmountable bar in North Carolina

2022App. 674, 681 , 614 S.E.2d 542, 547 (2005) (citation and quotation marks omitted). ¶ 15 This Court, on appeal from an order allowing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), reviews de novo “whether, as a matter of law, the allegations of the complaint . . . are sufficient to state a claim upon which relief may be granted[.]” Christmas v. Cabarrus Cty., 192 N.C.

2022App. 674, 681 , 614 S.E.2d 542, 547 (2005) (citation and quotation marks omitted). ¶ 10 “On appeal from a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), this Court reviews de novo whether, as a matter of law, the allegations of the complaint . . . are sufficient to state a claim upon which relief may be granted[.]” Christmas v. Cabarrus Cty., 192 N.C.

2018App. at 492 , 533 S.E.2d at 846 . " 'Such an insurmountable bar may consist of an absence of law to support a claim, an absence of facts sufficient to make a good claim, or the disclosure of some fact that necessarily defeats the claim.' " Id. (quoting Al-Hourani v. Ashley , 126 N.C.

2018App. at 492 , 533 S.E.2d at 846 . " 'Such an insurmountable bar may consist of an absence of law to support a claim, an absence of facts sufficient to make a good claim, or the disclosure of some fact that necessarily defeats the claim.' " Id. (quoting Al-Hourani v. Ashley , 126 N.C.

2005"When considering a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the trial court need only look to the face of the complaint to determine whether it reveals an insurmountable bar to plaintiff's recovery." Locus v. Fayetteville State University, 102 N.C.App. 522, 527 , 402 S.E.2d 862, 866 (1991) (citing Hawkins v. Webster, 78 N.C.App. 589 , 337 S.E.2d 682 (1985)).

2005"When considering a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the trial court need only look to the face of the complaint to determine whether it reveals an insurmountable bar to plaintiff's recovery." Locus v. Fayetteville State University, 102 N.C.App. 522, 527 , 402 S.E.2d 862, 866 (1991) (citing Hawkins v. Webster, 78 N.C.App. 589 , 337 S.E.2d 682 (1985)).

2001“A complaint cannot withstand a motion to dismiss where an insurmountable bar to recovery appears on its face.” Id. (citation omitted). “ ‘Such an insurmountable bar may consist of an absence of law to support a claim, an absence of facts sufficient to make a good claim, or the disclosure of some fact that necessarily defeats the claim.’ ” Id. (quoting Al-Hourani v. Ashley, 126 N.C.

2001“A complaint cannot withstand a motion to dismiss where an insurmountable bar to recovery appears on its face.” Id. (citation omitted). “ ‘Such an insurmountable bar may consist of an absence of law to support a claim, an absence of facts sufficient to make a good claim, or the disclosure of some fact that necessarily defeats the claim.’ ” Id. (quoting Al-Hourani v. Ashley, 126 N.C.

1997F.D.I.C. v. Loft Apartments, 39 N.C.

1981App. 473 , 250 S.E. 2d 693 (1979), or when the complaint shows on its face that there is an insurmountable bar.

1972Sutton v. Duke, supra; Cassels v. Motor Co., 10 N.C.

1972Sutton v. Duke, supra; Cassels v. Motor Co., 10 N.C.

2025Oil Co., Inc. v. AAN Real Est., LLC, 232 N.C.

2022App. at 103-04 , 601 S.E.2d at 251-52 . ¶ 22 Thus, Plaintiffs’ Complaint reveals facts representing an insurmountable bar to their claim for adverse possession of the Alleyway and demonstrates Plaintiffs are not entitled to declaratory relief on this basis.

2022“The Motion [to Dismiss] is seldom an appropriate pleading in actions for declaratory judgments, and will not be allowed simply because the plaintiff may not be able to prevail.” Id. “[The Motion to Dismiss] is allowed only when the record clearly shows that there is no basis for declaratory relief as when the complaint does not allege an actual, genuine existing controversy.” Id. ¶ 12 “When considering a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the trial court need only look to the face of the complaint to determine whether it reveals an insurmountable bar to plaintiff’s recovery.” Locus v. Fayetteville S

2022“The Motion [to Dismiss] is seldom an appropriate pleading in actions for declaratory judgments, and will not be allowed simply because the plaintiff may not be able to prevail.” Id. “[The Motion to Dismiss] is allowed only when the record clearly shows that there is no basis for declaratory relief as when the complaint does not allege an actual, genuine existing controversy.” Id. ¶ 12 “When considering a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the trial court need only look to the face of the complaint to determine whether it reveals an insurmountable bar to plaintiff’s recovery.” Locus v. Fayetteville S

2017"Although well-pleaded factual allegations of the complaint are treated as true for purposes of a 12(b)(6) motion, conclusions of law or unwarranted deductions of facts are not admitted." Dalenko v. Wake County Dep't of Human Servs. , 157 N.C.App. 49 , 56, 578 S.E.2d 599 , 604 (2003) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). *559 A complaint is not sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss if an insurmountable bar to recovery appears on the face of the complaint.

2017"Although well-pleaded factual allegations of the complaint are treated as true for purposes of a 12(b)(6) motion, conclusions of law or unwarranted deductions of facts are not admitted." Dalenko v. Wake County Dep't of Human Servs. , 157 N.C.App. 49 , 56, 578 S.E.2d 599 , 604 (2003) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). *559 A complaint is not sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss if an insurmountable bar to recovery appears on the face of the complaint.

2017App. 421 , 424, 533 S.E.2d 270 , 272 (2000).

2017A Rule 12(b)(6) motion "is properly granted where a valid legal defense stands as an insurmountable bar to a plaintiff's recovery." Lupton v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of N.C. , 139 N.C.

2017Mitchell v. Pruden , --- N.C.App. ----, ----, 796 S.E.2d 77 , 81 (2017) (citations and quotation marks omitted).

2016The allegations and circumstances surrounding Scotland Memorial's refusal to allow Mr. Norton's family to see him, and the hospital's reasonableness and justification, or lack thereof, and the consequences to the family are issues "for discovery and the other pretrial procedures." Id . at 444, 364 S.E.2d at 384 .

2011G.S. 55-7-42. 57 Id. [47] "A plaintiff's failure to satisfy this demand requirement constitutes an insurmountable bar to recovery." Green v. Condra, 2009 NCBC 21, ¶ 89 (internal quotations omitted). [48] As noted above, it is a well-established rule in North Carolina "that shareholders cannot pursue individual causes of action against third parties for wrongs or injuries to the corporation that result in the diminution or destruction of the value of their stock." Barger, 346 N.C. at 658 . [49] The theory behind the Barger rule is that "a shareholder cannot individually recover the lost value o

2006“A counterclaim is sufficient to withstand the motion [12(b)(6)] where no insurmountable bar to *44 recovery on the claim appears on its face.” Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Rebhan, 66 N.C.

2006Allen v. Ferrera, 141 N.C.

2006“The essential elements of any negligence claim are the existence of a legal duty or standard of care owed to the plaintiff by the defendant, breach of that duty, and a causal relationship between the breach of duty and certain actual injury or loss sustained by the plaintiff.” Peace River Electric Cooperative v. Ward Transformer Co., 116 N.C.

2004The sole purpose of a motion pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 12(b)(6) is "to test the legal sufficiency of the pleading against which [the motion] is directed." Azzolino v. Dingfelder, 71 N.C.App. 289, 295 , 322 S.E.2d 567, 573 (1984), rev'd. in part and aff'd. in part, 315 N.C. 103 , 337 S.E.2d 528 (1985), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 835 , 107 S.Ct. 131 , 93 L.Ed.2d 75 (1986).