Harris v. Pembaur
| Decision Date | 17 March 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 8620SC784,8620SC784 |
| Citation | 84 N.C.App. 666,353 S.E.2d 673 |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Rickey HARRIS v. Joan E. PEMBAUR. |
Pollock, Fullenwider, Cunningham & Patterson, P.A. by Bruce T. Cunningham, Jr., Southern Pines, for plaintiff-appellant.
West, Crawford & James by Randolph M. James, Winston-Salem, for defendant-appellee.
The issue for consideration is whether the trial court properly dismissed plaintiff's case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and lack of personal jurisdiction.
We first address the question of subject matter jurisdiction. Jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of an action is the most critical aspect of the court's authority to act. Subject matter jurisdiction refers to the power of the court to deal with the kind of action in question. W. Shuford, N.C. Civil Practice and Procedure § 12-6 (1981).
Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred upon the courts by either the North Carolina Constitution or by statute. Article I, § 18 of the North Carolina Constitution states: "All courts shall be open; every person for an injury done him in his lands, goods, or reputation shall have remedy by due course of law; and right and justice shall be administered without favor, denial, or delay."
Subject matter jurisdiction is statutorily conferred on the trial divisions of the General Court of Justice in this state under N.C.G.S. § 7A-240 which states:
Original civil jurisdiction generally.
Except for the original jurisdiction in respect of claims against the State which is vested in the Supreme Court, original general jurisdiction of all justiciable matters of a civil nature cognizable in the General Court of Justice is vested in the aggregate in the superior court division and the district court division as the trial divisions of the General Court of Justice. Except in respect of proceedings in probate and the administration of decedents' estates, the original civil jurisdiction so vested in the trial divisions is vested concurrently in each division.
It is, therefore, evident that except for areas specifically placing jurisdiction elsewhere (such as claims under the Worker's Compensation Act) the trial courts of North Carolina have subject matter jurisdiction over "all justiciable matters of a civil nature."
The contract dispute between the parties in this case constitutes a "justiciable matter" that is "cognizable" in our trial courts. Therefore, the trial judge's determination that there was no subject matter jurisdiction was in error.
We now turn to the question of whether the trial court correctly determined that there was no in personam jurisdiction over the defendant.
A court can render judgment against a party "only if there exists one or more of the jurisdictional grounds set forth in G.S. 1-75.4...." N.C.G.S. § 1-75.3 (1983). The first question to be answered then is whether defendant meets one of the twelve categories of circumstances set forth in N.C.G.S. § 1-75.4.
Plaintiff contends that the applicable statutory grounds are set forth in N.C.G.S. § 1-75.4(5)(c) which states that there is jurisdiction in an action which "[a]rises out of a promise, made anywhere to the plaintiff or to some third party for the plaintiff's benefit, by the defendant to deliver or receive within this State, or to ship from this State goods, documents of title, or other things of value."
In reviewing the evidence, the contract required that the balance of the purchase price was to be paid to Ronnie Beard Training Stables which was located in North Carolina. Therefore, the action arose out of defendant's failure to honor the promise to deliver the cash due under the contract to Ronnie Beard Training Stables. N.C.G.S. § 1-75.4(5)(c) would therefore apply and our "long-arm statute" allows jurisdiction.
The next step in the process would normally be to determine if the requirements of due process have been sufficiently met to impose in personam jurisdiction over defendant.
As to this question, defendant's failure to timely raise the defense and her admission of jurisdiction in her answer, precludes her from prevailing on this point.
The manner of presenting the defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person is governed by Rule 12 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. The pertinent provisions of that rule are as follows:
(b) How Presented. Every defense, ... to a claim for relief in any pleading, ... shall be asserted in the responsive pleading thereto ..., except that the following [defense] may at the option of the pleader be made by motion:
* * *
(g) Consolidation of Defenses in Motion. A party who makes a motion under this rule may join with it any other motions herein provided for and then available to him. If a party makes a motion under this rule but omits therefrom any defense or objection...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dalenko v. Stephens, 5:12–CV–122–F.
...division and the district court division as the trial divisions of the General Court of Justice”). See also Harris v. Pembaur, 84 N.C.App. 666, 667–68, 353 S.E.2d 673, 675 (1987) (explaining that “[s]ubject matter jurisdiction refers to the power of the court to deal with the kind of action......
-
Time Warner Entertainment Advance/Newhouse Partnership v. Town of Landis
...matter jurisdiction is conferred upon the courts by either the North Carolina Constitution or by statute, " Harris v. Pembaur, 84 N.C.App. 666, 667, 353 S.E.2d 673, 675 (1987) (citing N.C. Const. art. I, § 18 (emphasis added)), this Court is unaware of any act of the General Assembly that s......
-
Lippard v. Holleman
...matter jurisdiction is conferred upon the courts by either the North Carolina Constitution or by statute." Harris v. Pembaur , 84 N.C. App. 666, 667, 353 S.E.2d 673, 675 (1987). "The question of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time ...." Lemmerman v. A.T. Williams Oil Co. ,......
-
Hailey v. Tropic Leisure Corp.
...the court over the subject matter of an action is the most critical aspect of the court's authority to act." Harris v. Pembaur , 84 N.C. App. 666, 667, 353 S.E.2d 673, 675 (1987). "Every court necessarily has the inherent judicial power to inquire into, hear and determine questions of its o......