No counterclaim, cross claim or third-party claim which would make the amount in controversy exceed the jurisdictional amount established by G.S. 7A-210(1) is permissible in a small claim action assigned to a magistrate. No determination of fact or law in an assigned small claim action estops a party thereto in any subsequent action which, except for this section, might have been asserted under the Code of Civil Procedure as a counterclaim in the small claim action. Notwithstanding G.S. 1A-1, Rule 13, failure by a defendant to file a counterclaim in a small claims action assigned to a magistrate, or failure by a defendant to appeal a judgment in a small claims action to district court, shall not bar such claims in a separate action. (1965, c. 310, s. 1; 1973, c. 1267, s. 2; 1979, c. 144, s. 2; 1981, c. 555, s. 2; 1985, c. 329; 1989, c. 311, s. 2; 1993, c. 553, s. 73(b); 2005-423, s. 9.)
Notes of Decisions
4U Homes & Sales, Inc. v. McCoy, 762 S.E.2d 308 (N.C. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 6× “3 However, N.C. Gen. Stat. §7A-219 provides that: *434 [n]o counterclaim, cross claim or third-party claim which would make the amount in controversy exceed the jurisdictional amount established by [N.”
Holloway v. Holloway, 726 S.E.2d 198 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 4× “1A-1, Rule 13, failure by a defendant to file a counterclaim in a small claims action assigned to a magistrate . .”
J. S. & Assocs., Inc. v. Stevenson, 828 S.E.2d 183 (N.C. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 8× “2d 331 , 333 (2000), which extends to all counterclaims, cross claims, and third-party claims brought in small claims court, see N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-219 (2017). That is, a defendant *185 in a small claims action is not allowed to bring forth any counterclaim against the…”
Cloer v. Smith, 512 S.E.2d 779 (N.C. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 3× “See N.C.G.S. § 7A-219 (1995) (“No counterclaim .”
Chandler v. Cleveland Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 211 S.E.2d 484 (N.C. Ct. App. 1975).
· cites it 4× “Among the applicable statutes governing procedure in small claim actions generally was G.S. 7A-219 which, in 1971, read as follows: “§ 7A-219.”
Silwal v. Akshar Lenoir, No. 23-589 (N.C. Ct. App. Feb. 6, 2024).
· cites it 3× “427, 435 (2014) (“As a result[] [of N.C.G.S. §§ 7A-219 to -220,] a defendant in a summary ejection action who wishes to assert counterclaims that have a value greater than the jurisdictional amount applicable in small claims court may either -6- SILWAL V.”
Ervin Co. v. Hunt, 217 S.E.2d 93 (N.C. Ct. App. 1975).
“[1»3] It suffices to say that (1) the magistrate correctly refused to hear defendant’s counterclaim (G.S. 7A-219), (2) defendant received a trial de novo in the district court (G.”
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.