Roshelli v. Sperry
| Decision Date | 02 August 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 8215SC801,8215SC801 |
| Citation | 63 N.C.App. 509,305 S.E.2d 218 |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Louis F. ROSHELLI v. Lawrence F. SPERRY. |
Charles C. Thompson, III, Graham, for plaintiff-appellant.
Tuggle, Duggins, Meschan, Thornton & Elrod, P.A. by Joseph F. Brotherton, Greensboro, for defendant-appellee.
In arguing that the defendant's motion for summary judgment was erroneously granted, plaintiff acknowledges that the summons directed to the defendant was not issued until eleven days after the complaint was filed and more than three years after the occurrence of the injuries for which he seeks recovery. He contends that the applicable three year statute of limitations, G.S. 1-52, was tolled when the action was commenced by the filing of his complaint on 27 March 1981 and continued to be tolled subject only to having the defendant properly served with a copy of the complaint and summons, even though issuance of the summons against defendant occurred more than five days after filing of the complaint. We do not agree.
An action is commenced under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 3, by the filing of a complaint or the issuance of a summons. Here, plaintiff's lawsuit was commenced by the filing of his complaint on 27 March 1981, within the three year limitation period of G.S. 1-52 governing personal injury actions. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 4(a) states that upon the filing of the complaint, summons "shall be issued forthwith, and in any event within five days." (Emphasis added.) G.S. 1A-1, Rule 4(b) mandates that the summons "shall be directed to the defendant ...." (Emphasis added.) A summons was properly issued within the five day limit allowed by Rule 4(a) but it was directed to Beverly N. Sperry, who was not a party defendant to this lawsuit. The summons issued in the name of the defendant Lawrence F. Sperry was issued eleven days after the filing of the complaint. Plaintiff's failure to cause a summons to be issued in the name of Lawrence Sperry within five days of the filing of his complaint resulted in a discontinuance of the action against defendant. The summons which was issued on 7 April 1981 for service on Lawrence Sperry initiated a new action at the time of its issuance. Roshelli v. Sperry, 57 N.C.App. 305, 291 S.E.2d 355 (1982); Cf. Morton v. Insurance Co., 250 N.C. 722, 110 S.E.2d 330 (1959) (). The commencement of the action on 7 April 1981 occurred more than three years after the accident on 31 March 1978. The action is barred by G.S. 1-52.
Plaintiff argues that because the 7 April 1981 summons issued in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Franklin v. Winn Dixie Raleigh, Inc.
...to the extension of time for 'service' of a summons which has been properly issued against a named defendant." Roshelli v. Sperry, 63 N.C.App. 509, 511, 305 S.E.2d 218, 219, review denied, 309 N.C. 633, 308 S.E.2d 716 (1983). Rule 4(d) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure provides......
-
Rhodes v. Mun. Emergency Servs., Inc.
...Union Regional. Id. at 326. In Stack, the North Carolina Court of Appeals also discussed its previous decision in Roshelli v. Sperry, 305 S.E.2d 218, 219 (N.C. Ct. App. 1983), noting: In Roshelli, the plaintiff filed a complaint on 27 March 1981 against the defendant seeking recovery for pe......
-
Rhodes v. &NBSP
...Union Regional. Id. at 326. In Stack, the North Carolina Court of Appeals also discussed its previous decision in Roshelli v. Sperry, 305 S.E.2d 218, 219 (N.C. Ct. App. 1983), noting: In Roshelli, the plaintiff filed a complaint on 27 March 1981 against the defendant seeking recovery for pe......
-
Stack v. Union Regional Mem. Med. Center
...the subsequent issuance of a summons against Union Regional did not relate back to the original summons. See Roshelli v. Sperry, 63 N.C.App. 509, 511, 305 S.E.2d 218, 219, disc. review denied, 309 N.C. 633, 308 S.E.2d 716 (1983). In Roshelli, the plaintiff filed a complaint on 27 March 1981......