N.C. Gen. Stat. » Chapter 1
NC General Statutes

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-118 (2026)

Effect on subsequent purchasers

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NCLEGncleg.gov (official) JustiaChapter 1 CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

From the cross-indexing of the notice of lis pendens only is the pendency of the action constructive notice to a purchaser or incumbrancer of the property affected thereby; and every person whose conveyance or incumbrance is subsequently executed or subsequently registered is a subsequent purchaser or incumbrancer, and is bound by all proceedings taken after the cross-indexing of the notice to the same extent as if he were made a party to the action. For the purposes of this section an action is pending from the time of cross-indexing the notice. (C.C.P., s. 90; Code, s. 229; Rev., s. 462; 1919, c. 31; C.S., s. 502.)

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1965–2023 · leading case: Kelley v. Citifinancial Servs., Inc., 696 S.E.2d 775 (N.C. Ct. App. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kelley v. Citifinancial Servs., Inc., 696 S.E.2d 775 (N.C. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 10× “The judgment similarly binds grantees of a deed of trust secured during the pendency of litigation. Although the cross-indexing of the Us pendens does not, like an injunction, prevent transfers of or encumbrances on land, it makes clear that a subsequent purchaser or…”
Providence Volunteer Fire Dep't v. Town of Weddington, 800 S.E.2d 425 (N.C. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “" N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-118 (2015). Therefore, Providence was provided an adequate remedy at law and the issuance of the preliminary injunction was improper.”
Hill v. Pinelawn Mem'l Park, Inc., 282 S.E.2d 779 (N.C. 1981). · cites it 2× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-118 (1969). The purpose of this statute is to supplement our registration statute by providing a simple and readily available means of ascertaining the existence of adverse claims to property not otherwise disclosed by the public registry.”
Lawing v. Jaynes, 206 S.E.2d 162 (N.C. 1974). · cites it 3× “G.S. 1-118 provides: “From the cross-indexing of the notice of lis pendens only is the pendency of the action constructive notice to a purchaser or incumbrancer of the property affected thereby; and every person whose conveyance or incumbrance is subsequently executed or…”
In Re Suggs, 355 B.R. 525 (Bankr. M.D.N.C. 2006). · cites it 2× “1998); see also N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1-118 (stating that a purchaser or encumbrancer receives constructive notice by a cross-indexing of a lis pendens).”
Greenpoint Mortg. Funding, Inc. v. Schlossberg, 888 A.2d 297 (Md. 2005). “§ 6501 (constructive notice commences upon filing of Notice); N.C. Gen Stat. § 1-118 (constructive notice commences upon the cross-indexing of Notice); N.”
Lawing v. Jaynes, 202 S.E.2d 334 (N.C. Ct. App. 1974). · cites it 2× “G.S. 1-118. This assignment of error is sustained.”
Angell v. Faison (In re Faison), 518 B.R. 849 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2014). “§ 1-118, “the notice of lis pen-dens serves as ‘constructive notice to a purchaser or incumbrancer of the property affected thereby; and every person whose conveyance or incumbrance is subsequently executed or subsequently registered is a subsequent purchaser or incumbrancer’ ”).”
Cutter v. Cutter Realty Co., 144 S.E.2d 882 (N.C. 1965). “G.S. 1-118. Without such notice of lis pendens, a bona fide purchaser or lien creditor not a party to the action and having no actual notice thereof would not be subject to a judgment rendered after his acquisition of title or lien.”
Johnson v. Brown, 323 S.E.2d 389 (N.C. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-118 (1983) provides that From the cross-indexing of the notice of lis pendens only is the pendency of the action constructive notice to a purchaser or incumbrancer of the property affected thereby; and every person whose conveyance or incumbrance is…”
Reo Props. Corp. v. Smith, 743 S.E.2d 230 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-118 (2011). “[E] very person whose conveyance or incumbrance is subsequently executed or subsequently registered is a subsequent purchaser .”
Huff v. Trent Academy of Basic Educ. Inc., 280 S.E.2d 17 (N.C. Ct. App. 1981). “G.S. 1-118. We believe there was evidence in this case from which the jury could find that James Huff embezzled money from the Bank and put the money in the account of the Academy; that the money was used to construct buildings on the Academy’s property; that U.”
Show all 17 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.