Baumann v. Smith
| Decision Date | 04 December 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 61,61 |
| Citation | 260 S.E.2d 626,298 N.C. 778 |
| Parties | Geoffrey BAUMANN d/b/a Baumann Building and Company v. Mr. Peter SMITH and wife, Mrs. Mimi Smith. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Frank M. Wooten, Jr., by Thomas B. Carpenter, Jr., Greenville, for plaintiff-appellant.
Taylor, Brimson & Aycock by James C. Marrow, Jr., Tarboro, for defendants-appellees.
The sole question presented by this appeal is whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's granting of summary judgment for defendants. Plaintiff contends that defendants failed to meet their burden of showing that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact, and consequently summary judgment should not have been granted even though plaintiff offered no proof in opposition to the motion.
G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56 (Summary judgment), the statute pertinent to the decision of this appeal, provides in part:
(c) . . . The (summary) judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. . . .
(e) . . . When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but his response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If he does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against him.
The summary judgment rule is for the disposition of cases where there is no genuine issue of fact and its purpose is to eliminate formal trials where only questions of law are involved. Caldwell v. Deese, 288 N.C. 375, 218 S.E.2d 379 (1975). "Two types of cases are involved: (a) Those where a claim or defense is utterly baseless in fact, and (b) those where only a question of law on the undisputable facts is in controversy and it can be appropriately decided without full exposure of trial." McNair v. Boyette, 282 N.C. 230, 192 S.E.2d 457 (1972); Blades v. City of Raleigh, 280 N.C. 531, 187 S.E.2d 35 (1972).
"( I)n ruling on a motion for summary judgment the court does not resolve issues of fact and must deny the motion if there is any issue of genuine material fact." Singleton v. Stewart, 280 N.C. 460, 186 S.E.2d 400 (1972). The movant always has the burden of showing that there is no triable issue of fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Pitts v. Pizza, Inc., 296 N.C. 81, 249 S.E.2d 375 (1978); Kidd v. Early,289 N.C. 343, 222 S.E.2d 392 (1976). In considering the motion, the trial judge carefully scrutinizes the papers of the moving party and resolves all inferences against him. Kidd v. Early, supra ; Caldwell v. Deese, supra.
In interpreting G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56, we have recognized that under some circumstances the trial judge may properly deny the motion for summary judgment even when the nonmoving party fails to offer competent counter-affidavits or other evidence as provided by the statute.
In Savings & Loan Association v. Trust Co., 282 N.C. 44, 191 S.E.2d 683 (1972), the plaintiff opposed a motion for summary judgment but filed no counter-affidavit or other evidence in opposition thereto. In reversing the trial court's granting of the motion, this Court concluded that the defendant's supporting affidavit, even if treated as having complied with the requirements of Rule 56(e), failed to satisfy his burden as the moving party. Justice Lake writing for the Court noted:
Irrespective of who has the burden of proof at trial upon issues...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barnes v. Cargill, Inc.
...N.C. 709, 124 S.E.2d 905, 908 (1962); Baumann v. Smith, 41 N.C.App. 223, 254 S.E.2d 627, 632 (1979), reversed on other grounds 298 N.C. 778, 260 S.E.2d 626 (1979). Here, there is no dispute that the plaintiffs contracted with Mr. Warsco through one of his corporate ventures, either H.O.G.S.......
-
Allied Spectrum, LLC v. German Auto Ctr., Inc.
...resolves all inferences against the moving party. See In re Will of Jones , 362 N.C. at 573, 669 S.E.2d at 576 ; Baumann v. Smith , 298 N.C. 778, 782, 260 S.E.2d 626, 628 (1979)."Summary judgment is a somewhat drastic remedy, [that] must be used with due regard to its purposes and a cautiou......
-
Dealers Specialties, Inc. v. Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc., 805DC1167
...favorable to the party opposing summary judgment. Baumann v. Smith, 41 N.C.App. 223, 254 S.E.2d 627, rev'd on other grounds, 298 N.C. 778, 260 S.E.2d 626 (1979). We conclude that defendant has not met this burden. The bare denial of plaintiff's allegations and the raising of G.S. §§ 25-2-20......
-
Spector United Emp. Credit Union v. Smith
...the movant has shown that no material issue of fact exists and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Baumann v. Smith, 298 N.C. 778, 260 S.E.2d 626 (1979). If different material conclusions can be drawn from the evidence, summary judgment should be denied. Durham v. Vine, 40 N......