Turning to the facts of the present case, we note this appeal
arises from an order granting summary judgment. Our review is
therefore de novo
. The trial court should grant summary judgment
'if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that
there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any
party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.' McCutchen v.
, 360 N.C. 280, 285-86, 624 S.E.2d 620, 625 (2006)
(quoting N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c) (2005)) (citation
Under N.C.R. App. P. 10:
(a) . . . [T]he scope of review on appeal is
confined to a consideration of those
assignments of error set out in the record on
appeal in accordance with this Rule 10. . . .
(c) (1) . . . Each assignment of error shall, so
far as practicable, be confined to a single
issue of law; and shall state plainly,
concisely and without argumentation the legal
basis upon which error is assigned.
N.C.R. App. P. 10(a) and (c)(1). One purpose of this rule is to
'identify for the appellee's benefit all the errors possibly to be
urged on appeal . . . so that the appellee may properly assess thesufficiency of the proposed record on appeal to protect his
position.' State v. Baggett & Penuel
, 133 N.C. App. 47, 48, 514
S.E.2d 536, 537 (1999) (quoting Kimmel v. Brett
, 92 N.C. App. 331,
335, 374 S.E.2d 435, 437 (1988)). In addition, Rule 10 allows our
appellate courts to 'fairly and expeditiously' review the
assignments of error without making a 'voyage of discovery' through
the record in order to determine the legal questions involved.
Rogers v. Colpitts
, 129 N.C. App. 421, 422, 499 S.E.2d 789, 790
(1998) (quoting Kimmel
, 92 N.C. App. at 335, 374 S.E.2d at 437).
Thus, assignments of error that are broad, vague, and unspecific
. . . do not comply with the North Carolina Rules of Appellate
Procedure[.] In re Appeal of Lane Co
., 153 N.C. App. 119, 123,
571 S.E.2d 224, 226-27 (2002). Moreover, it is long settled that
the 'scope of appellate review is limited to the issues presented
by assignments of error set out in the record on appeal; where the
issue presented in the appellant's brief does not correspond to a
proper assignment of error, the matter is not properly considered
by the appellate court.' Walker v. Walker
, __ N.C. App. __, __,
624 S.E.2d 639, 641 (2005) (quoting Bustle v. Rice
, 116 N.C. App.
658, 659, 449 S.E.2d 10, 11 (1994)) (citation omitted).
In Hubert Jet Air, LLC v. Triad Aviation, Inc.
, __ N.C. App.
__, __ S.E.2d __, __ (COA05-725, filed 2 May 2006),
assigned error to the trial court's partial granting of the
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as to Counts 3 through 8.
This Court held that the assignment of error
[does not] provide any legal basis for the
error alleged. Nor do any of the recordreferences serve to provide this Court with
any additional understanding of the legal
basis for the alleged errors. These
assignments of error 'essentially amount to no
more than an allegation that 'the court erred
because its ruling was erroneous.'
__ N.C. App. at __, 624 S.E.2d at 642).
an assignment of error is designed to allow counsel to argue
anything and everything they desire in their brief on appeal.
'This assignment - like a hoopskirt - covers everything and touches
nothing.' Wetchin v. Ocean Side Corp
., 167 N.C. App. 756, 759,
606 S.E.2d 407, 409 (2005) (quoting State v. Kirby
, 276 N.C. 123,
131, 171 S.E.2d 416, 422 (1970)).
In the instant case, plaintiffs' sole assignment of error
assigns error to the trial court's order of summary judgment
on the grounds that the record before the
trial court was insufficient to support the
trial court's determination that there was no
genuine issue as to any material fact, the
trial court erred in concluding such as a
matter of law, and the granting of summary
judgment was legal error prejudicial to the
The instant case is functionally indistinguishable from Hubert
and cases cited therein. We also note that the record includes
close to 1000 pages of deposition testimony and exhibits, and that
plaintiffs' assignment of error does not direct the appellee or
this Court to any particular page or section of the record.
We conclude that plaintiffs' assignment of error fails to
comply with Rule 10 of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate
Procedure, and thus does not preserve for appellate review the
issues briefed on appeal. Plaintiffs' failure to follow the NorthCarolina Rules of Appellate procedure subjects their appeal to
The Rules of Appellate Procedure are
mandatory, and 'must be consistently applied;
otherwise, the Rules become meaningless, and
an appellee is left without notice of the
basis upon which an appellate court might
rule.' 'Failure to follow these rules will
subject an appeal to dismissal.'
Wilson v. Burch Farms, Inc
., __ N.C. App. __, __, 627 S.E.2d 249,
256 (2006) (quoting Viar v. N.C. DOT
, 359 N.C. 400, 402, 610 S.E.2d
360, 361, reh'g denied
, 359 N.C. 643, 617 S.E.2d 662 (2005), and
Consol. Elec. Distribs., Inc. v. Dorsey
, 170 N.C. App. 684, 686,
613 S.E.2d 518, 520 (2005)) (internal citation omitted).
Judges McCULLOUGH and TYSON concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***