Within seven years an action -
(1) Repealed by Session Laws 1961, c. 115, s. 1.
(2) By a creditor of a deceased person against his personal or real representative, within seven years next after the qualification of the executor or administrator and his making the advertisement required by law for creditors of the deceased to present their claims, where no personal service of such notice in writing is made upon the creditor. A creditor thus barred of a recovery against the representative of any principal debtor is also barred of a recovery against any surety to the debt.
(3) Against the owner of an interest in real property by a unit of local government for a violation of a land-use statute, ordinance, or permit or any other official action concerning land use carrying the effect of law. This subdivision does not limit the remedy of injunction for conditions that are actually injurious or dangerous to the public health or safety but does prescribe an outside limitation of seven years from the earlier of the occurrence of any of the following:
a. The violation is apparent from a public right-of-way.
b. The violation is in plain view from a place to which the public is invited. (C.C.P., s. 32; Code, s. 153; Rev., s. 392; C.S., s. 438; 1961, c. 115, s. 1; 2017-10, s. 2.15(b).)
Notes of Decisions
Bennett v. Anson Bank & Trust Co., 143 S.E.2d 312 (N.C. 1965).
“of the partner who survived in 1936, and *153 as executor of his widow, pleads the lapse of time — over 27 years — in bar of plaintiffs’ right to an accounting.”
Reid v. Bristol, 86 S.E.2d 417 (N.C. 1955).
“As to limitation applicable to action on judgment rendered by justice of the peace, see G.S. 1-49. “A void judgment is a nullity, and no rights can be based thereon; it can be disregarded, or set aside on motion, or the court may of its own motion set it aside, or it may be…”
Thompson v. Union Cty. (N.C. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 6× “UNION COUNTY 2022-NCCOA-382 Opinion of the Court Ordinance (“2014 UDO”) to a property constructed prior to enactment of the 2014 UDO; (3) the County’s enforcement actions are barred by statutes of limitations in accordance with North Carolina General Statutes §§ 1-49(3) and…”
Thompson v. Union Cty. (N.C. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 6× “UNION COUNTY 2022-NCCOA-382 Opinion of the Court Ordinance (“2014 UDO”) to a property constructed prior to enactment of the 2014 UDO; (3) the County’s enforcement actions are barred by statutes of limitations in accordance with North Carolina General Statutes §§ 1-49(3) and…”
— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-49(3) — 2 cases
Thompson v. Union Cty. (N.C. Ct. App. 2022).
“UNION COUNTY 2022-NCCOA-382 Opinion of the Court Ordinance (“2014 UDO”) to a property constructed prior to enactment of the 2014 UDO; (3) the County’s enforcement actions are barred by statutes of limitations in accordance with North Carolina General Statutes §§ 1-49(3) and…”
Thompson v. Union Cty. (N.C. Ct. App. 2022).
“UNION COUNTY 2022-NCCOA-382 Opinion of the Court Ordinance (“2014 UDO”) to a property constructed prior to enactment of the 2014 UDO; (3) the County’s enforcement actions are barred by statutes of limitations in accordance with North Carolina General Statutes §§ 1-49(3) and…”
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.