Gillikin v. Whitley, 838SC303

Docket NºNo. 838SC303
Citation311 S.E.2d 677, 66 N.C.App. 694
Case DateFebruary 21, 1984
CourtCourt of Appeal of North Carolina (US)

Page 677

311 S.E.2d 677
66 N.C.App. 694
William W. GILLIKIN and Jo Ann J. Gillikin
Robert E. WHITLEY, Trustee, and Ellis Jones, Jr., Plan
Administrator of the Ellis Jones, Jr. Tile
Contractor, Inc. Profit-Sharing Plan and
Trust Agreement.
No. 838SC303.
Court of Appeals of North Carolina.
Feb. 21, 1984.

White, Allen, Hooten, Hodges & Hines, P.A. by John R. Hooten, Kinston, for plaintiff William Gillikin, appellant and plaintiffs, appellees.

Harvey W. Marcus, Kinston, for defendant, Robert E. Whitley, appellant and appellee.

Thomas H. Morris, Kinston, for defendant, Ellis Jones, Jr., appellant and appellee.


Because of our disposition of this case, set out below, we treat both appeals together.

The record discloses that plaintiffs executed the instruments in question after receiving the following certified letter from

Page 679

an attorney who represented defendant Ellis Jones, Jr.:

Dear Mr. Gillikin:

I am writing this letter on behalf of Ellis Jones, Jr. and in regard to his business's Profit Sharing Plan.

As you know, we have evidence that you have misapplied funds in the amount of $90,916.57. I have prepared a Promissory Note in the principal amount of $90,916.57, with interest at 16%. I have also prepared a Deed of Trust securing this Note on all of the tracts of real property which you presently own in Lenoir County. The Note is payable upon demand and provides for interest at the rate of 16% per annum.

The Note has been prepared for your signature and the Deed of Trust has been prepared for your's and your wife's signature. [T]he Note will remain in my office and you and your wife may come in to sign the Note and Deed of Trust during any of our office hours. We shall be open from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, December 23, 1980 and will be closed until Monday, December 29, 1980, at 8:30 a.m.

Please be advised that in the event the Note and Deed of Trust have not been signed by you and your wife by 10:00 [66 N.C.App. 697] a.m. on Tuesday, December 30, 1980, I will take the following action:

1. I will institute a civil procedure against you for the entire balance and will seek to attach all real property in which you have an interest in Lenoir County.

2. I will request the District Attorney of our Judicial District to investigate the facts and to bring the appropriate criminal action against you. In addition to possible Federal criminal violations and perhaps additional State violations, it is my opinion...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Hinson v. United Financial Services, Inc., COA95-459
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US)
    • 6 Agosto 1996
    ...[sic ] to bring criminal action in exchange for whatever consideration was not an enforceable document." See, e.g., Gillikin v. Whitley, 66 N.C.App. 694, 697, 311 S.E.2d 677, 679 [123 N.C.App. 472] Despite the advice of counsel, the Hinsons directed Etheridge to draft the note and deed of t......
  • Brock v. Gillikin, 86-99-CIV-4.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Eastern District of North Carolina
    • 6 Enero 1988 the amount of the loans plus interest, secured by a deed of trust executed in both his name and his wife's. In Gillikin v. Whitley, 66 N.C.App. 694, 311 S.E.2d 677 (1984) that note was set aside by the North Carolina Court of Appeals as void against public 8. In 1984, following the decis......
  • Liberty Finance Co. v. North Augusta Computer Store, Inc., 8918DC1371
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US)
    • 18 Septiembre 1990
    ...payments here, and in doing so he must have anticipated that here is where he would be sued if the payments were not made. Wohlfahrt, 66 N.C.App. at 694, 311 S.E.2d at We conclude that the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice are not offended by requiring the defendant t......
  • Adams v. Jones, 9311SC652
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US)
    • 5 Abril 1994
    ...of preventing, refraining, or suppressing prosecution of a crime are void as against public policy." See Gillikin v. Whitley, 66 N.C.App. 694, 311 S.E.2d 677 (1984) and cases cited and relied upon therein. As the foregoing language from the contract discloses, plaintiffs signed the contract......
  • 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