An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Proced ure.

NO. COA02-1086

NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS

Filed: 1 July 2003

ROBERT L. PERKINS, and
LOUISE P. CARR,
    Petitioners

v .                                 Rockingham County
                                    No. 99 SP 0062
PRISCILLA P. WATSON
(deceased), NETTIE P.
HAIRSTON, DEAN E. MIMS,
HIAWATHA P. STEELE,
JAMES M. PERKINS,
JUANITA P. SIMMONS, and
GERVIS P. WEST,
    Respondents

    Appeal by petitioner Robert L. Perkins from orders entered 4 November 1999, 31 July 2001, and 9 May 2002 by Judges Michael E. Helms, Steve A. Balog, and Henry E. Frye, Jr., respectively, in Rockingham County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 21 May 2003.

    Robert L. Perkins, petitioner-appellant, pro se.

    No brief for respondent-appellees.

    PER CURIAM.

    All of the issues raised by Robert L. Perkins (“petitioner”) on appeal are moot for the reasons set forth herein. Since no motion to dismiss for mootness has been filed, we dismiss this appeal ex mero motu.    The refusal to review moot questions in North Carolina state courts is a principle of judicial restraint. In re Peoples, 296 N.C. 109, 147, 250 S.E.2d 890, 912 (1978).
            Whenever, during the course of litigation it develops that the relief sought has been granted or that the questions originally in controversy between the parties are no longer at issue, the case should be dismissed, for courts will not entertain or proceed with a cause merely to determine abstract propositions of law.

Id.
    In the instant case, the trial court noted in its 9 May 2002 order dismissing petitioner's petition, that a new special proceeding (02 SP 78) had been filed and was properly served on all parties to the action. The court additionally noted that File Number 02 SP 78 concerns the same property as the petition that the court was dismissing. The court further stated:
        Petitioner Robert Perkins admits he has made a general appearance in 02 SP 78 file. Petitioner Robert Perkins further admits that all claims of relief sought in this file are being litigated in 02 SP 78 and that he nor his claims will be prejudiced in any way by the dismissal of this action.

Therefore, petitioner's appeal is moot since all of petitioner's claims for relief are being litigated in 02 SP 78. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.
    Appeal dismissed.
    Panel consisting of Judges MARTIN, HUNTER, and GEER.
    Report per Rule 30(e).

*** Converted from WordPerfect ***