First Nat. Bank of Shelby v. General Funding Corp.
| Decision Date | 21 July 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 7627SC195,7627SC195 |
| Citation | 30 N.C.App. 172,226 S.E.2d 527 |
| Parties | FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF SHELBY, Plaintiff v. GENERAL FUNDING CORPORATION et al., Defendants, and Delores Ann Klouse et al., Additional Party Defendants. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Jones, Jones & Key, P.A., by James U. Downs, Franklin, for additional party defendant appellants.
No Counsel Contra.
Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Constitution of the United States, preclude a North Carolina court from obtaining jurisdiction over the person of the Additional Party Defendants who reside in and were served with process in the State of Florida by registered mail under G.S. 1--74.4?
In support of their motion to dismiss, the appealing Additional Party Defendants filed affidavits which revealed uncontradicted facts, as follows:
The Additional Party Defendants executed promissory notes on or about August, September and November of 1973, made payment to Kar-Kare Owners Group of Florida, Ltd., and in each case, the promissory notes represented a portion of the purchase price of five (5) units of limited partnership interest in the said Kar-Kare Owners Group of Florida, Ltd. which was a Florida limited partnership. Those promissory notes were apparently assigned to the defendant, General Funding Corporation, which was a North Carolina corporation doing business in the State of Florida, and subsequently assigned by the defendant, General Funding Corporation, to the plaintiff, The First National Bank of Shelby, as additional security for the loan referred to hereinabove. None of the Additional Party Defendants had ever done any business in the State of North Carolina, did not maintain any offices, bank accounts, mailing addresses, telephone listings or other business or personal facilities in the State of North Carolina, did not own any property in the State of North Carolina and did not place any advertising in any publications for the benefit of their businesses in the State. The entire transaction of execution and delivery of the promissory notes took place and was fully accomplished in the State of Florida, and the initial transaction was consummated between residents of Florida and a business entity organized under the laws of the State of Florida, namely, Kar-Kare Owners Group of Florida, Ltd. The subsequent assignments of the promissory notes by the said Kar-Kare Owners Group of Florida, Ltd., took place without the consent, approval, or knowledge, of any of the Additional Party Defendants; however, they were informed by the First National Bank of Shelby, plaintiff herein, that their notes had eventually been assigned to it, and some payments were made by each of the Additional Party Defendants which were made by check issued in the State of Florida, in each case, and mailed from the State of Florida to said Bank. At no time did any of the Additional Party Defendants personally appear in the State of North Carolina and commence or complete any phase of the entire transaction which began with their initial issuance of the promissory notes and which ended with the ultimate assignment of the notes to plaintiff Bank.
The Supreme Court of the United States has limited the power of the state courts to obtain personal service against persons outside the state since Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 24 L.Ed. 565 (1878). Since the Pennoyer decision the court, in a continuing process of evolution, has accepted and then abandoned 'consent', 'doing business', and 'presence' as the standards for measuring the extent of state judicial power over such persons and corporations. Generally, the states have kept pace with statutes based on these standards. Then in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 90 L.Ed. 95, 66 S.Ct. 154 (1945), the court held that 'due process requires only that in order to subject a defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rossetto Usa v. Greensky Financial, LLC
...are clearly a thing of value within the meaning of [N.C. Gen.Stat. §] 1-75.4(5)(c)."); compare First Nat. Bank v. General Funding Corp., 30 N.C.App. 172, 176, 226 S.E.2d 527, 530 (1976) (citations omitted) ("The mere mailing of a payment from outside the State by a nonresident to a party in......
-
Church v. Carter
...to the provisions of the statute, within the perimeters established by federal due process. See First Nat'l Bank v. Gen. Funding Corp., 30 N.C.App. 172, 176, 226 S.E.2d 527, 530 (1976). Plaintiffs contend that statutory jurisdiction lies under several of the provisions listed in Section 1-7......
-
Cameron-Brown Co. v. Daves
...payments from outside the state pursuant to a contract made outside the state sufficient contact. First National Bank of Shelby v. General Funding Corp., 30 N.C.App. 172, 226 S.E.2d 527 (1976). No evidence in the record shows where the contracts with Mr. Daves were actually consummated. Fur......
-
Mabry v. Fuller-Shuwayer Co., Ltd.
...31 N.C.App. 62, 228 S.E.2d 503 (1976), appeal dismissed, 434 U.S. 804, 98 S.Ct. 32, 54 L.Ed.2d 61 (1977); Bank v. Funding Corp., 30 N.C.App. 172, 226 S.E.2d 527 (1976); Trust Co. v. McDaniel, 18 N.C.App. 644, 197 S.E.2d 556 (1973). The only meaningful consideration, then, is whether the act......