Collins v. Edwards, 819SC175

Decision Date06 October 1981
Docket NumberNo. 819SC175,819SC175
PartiesMary COLLINS v. Nancy Hamilton EDWARDS.
CourtNorth Carolina Court of Appeals

Harvey D. Jackson, Henderson, for plaintiff-appellant.

Haywood, Denny & Miller by Charles H. Hobgood, Durham, for defendant-appellee.

HEDRICK, Judge.

The one question presented on this appeal is whether Judge McKinnon erred in allowing defendant's Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss and in dismissing plaintiff's claim with prejudice.

A motion to dismiss will be allowed if a complaint is clearly without merit; this lack of merit may consist in an absence of law to support a claim, or in the disclosure of some fact that will necessarily defeat the claim, F. D. I. C. v. Loft Apartments Ltd. Partnership, 39 N.C.App. 473, 250 S.E.2d 693 (1979), or when the complaint shows on its face that there is an insurmountable bar.

The Statute of Limitations can be raised on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion

(w)hen the complaint discloses on its face that plaintiff's claim is barred by the statute of limitations, such defect may be taken advantage of by a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Travis v. McLaughlin, 29 N.C.App. 389, 224 S.E.2d 243, cert. denied, 290 N.C. 555, 226 S.E.2d 513 (1976); Teague v. Asheboro Motor Co., 14 N.C.App. 736, 189 S.E.2d 671 (1972); Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 1357, at 608 (1969).

F. D. I. C. v. Loft Apartments Ltd. Partnership, supra at 475, 250 S.E.2d at 694-95.

An action for damages for personal injuries arising out of an automobile accident must be commenced within three years of the date of occurrence of such accident. G.S. §§ 1-15(a), 1-46, 1-52(5). A civil action may be commenced

by the issuance of a summons when

(1) A person makes application to the court stating the nature and purpose of his action and requesting permission to file his complaint within 20 days and

(2) The court makes an order stating the nature and purpose of the action and granting the requested permission.

G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 3 (1969). Furthermore, "(a) summons is issued when, after being filled out and dated, it is signed by the officer having authority to do so." G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 4 (1969); see also 1 McIntosh, North Carolina Practice and Procedure § 863 (Supp.1970).

In the present case, the record discloses that the summons was never issued. Plaintiff, in her brief, states the following:

Also in the court file of this case is a Civil Summons to be served with Order Extending Time, which bears the date of September 21, 1976. It bears no signature for the plaintiff's attorney, and it bears no signature of the clerk or any deputy clerk. The sheriff's return section is not filled in.

We think it is clear the summons was not issued on 21 September 1976, and thus the action was never commenced. The record discloses that plaintiff's claim is barred by the three year statute of limitations. It is not necessary, therefore, that we discuss the other possible grounds supporting Judge McKinnon's order dismissing the action, nor is it necessary that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • MCB Ltd. v. McGowan
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 18 August 1987
    ...fact which will necessarily defeat the claim." Forbis v. Honeycutt, 301 N.C. 699, 701, 273 S.E.2d 240, 241 (1981); Collins v. Edwards, 54 N.C.App. 180, 282 S.E.2d 559 (1981). After reviewing plaintiff's complaint, we find the subordination provisions in the contract and deed of trust were v......
  • Spencer v. Town of Chapel Hill
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina
    • 28 October 2003
    ...of plaintiff's claims based on failure to have a Rule 3 summons issued before the limitations period ran); Collins v. Edwards, 54 N.C.App. 180, 282 S.E.2d 559 (1981) (affirming dismissal of claims on statute of limitations grounds because plaintiff applying for time extension never issued a......
  • Lassiter v. Labcorp Occupational Testing Services
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina
    • 21 September 2004
    ...of plaintiff's claims based on failure to have a Rule 3 summons issued before the limitations period ran); Collins v. Edwards, 54 N.C.App. 180, 282 S.E.2d 559 (1981) (affirming dismissal on statute of limitations grounds because plaintiff failed to have a Rule 3 summons In the instant case ......
  • Koures v. Pfizer Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of North Carolina
    • 16 May 2011
    ...of plaintiff's claims based on failure to have a Rule 3 summons issued before the limitations period ran); Collins v. Edwards, 54 N.C.App. 180, 282 S.E.2d 559 (1981) (affirming dismissal on statute of limitations grounds because plaintiff failed to have a Rule 3 summons issued).In the insta......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT