JOANNE BEKSHA-BROWN,
ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE
OF MARK BROWN AND INDIVIDUALLY
v
.
Randolph County
No. 05 CVS 1836
RODNEY MASON,
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR OF
THE ESTATE OF CLARENCE DICKS
Clifton & Singer, L.L.P., by Lance R. Fife for plaintiff-
appellant.
Morris, York, Williams, Surles & Barringer, L.L.P., by
Thomas E. Williams and Dean P. Loven, for unnamed defendant-
appellee.
Teague, Rotenstreich & Stanaland, LLP, by Kenneth B.
Rotenstreich and Katherine C. Hall, for defendant-appellee.
STEELMAN, Judge.
Plaintiff Joanne Beksha-Brown, administratrix of the estate of
Mark Brown (plaintiff), appeals from an order granting defendants'
motions to dismiss. An unnamed defendant, Government Employees
Insurance Company (GEICO), and Rodney Mason, administrator of the
estate of Clarence Dicks (defendant), each moved to dismiss the
action pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. . 1A-1, Rule 12(b)(6).
Plaintiff dismissed her appeal as to the unnamed defendant, GEICO. We dismiss plaintiff's appeal as to defendant, the administrator of
the estate of Clarence Dicks.
On 26 October 2000, Mark Brown operated a motor vehicle
proceeding south on U.S. Hwy. 220 in Randolph County, North
Carolina, and Clarence Dicks operated a motor vehicle proceeding
north. The two vehicles collided, resulting in the deaths of both
drivers. Plaintiff filed this action seeking damages for the
wrongful death of her intestate.
On 24 October 2003, an order was entered appointing defendant
as public administrator of the estate of Clarence Dicks. On the
same day, plaintiff, a citizen and resident of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, filed a wrongful death action in the courts of
Massachusetts against defendant. On 11 November 2004, plaintiff's
complaint was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction over
defendant.
On 8 September 2005, plaintiff filed this action seeking
damages for wrongful death in Randolph County, North Carolina.
GEICO was joined as an unnamed defendant. Both the named and
unnamed defendant filed motions to dismiss pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.
On 20 January 2006, the trial court entered an order granting
defendants' motions to dismiss with prejudice. Plaintiff appeals.
On 28 August 2006, plaintiff and GEICO filed a motion
requesting that plaintiff's appeal as to GEICO be dismissed. This
motion was granted on 30 August 2006. In her sole assignment of error, plaintiff asserts that the
trial court erred in dismissing her complaint against defendants.
We disagree.
We first note that plaintiff's entire argument in her brief is
directed to an issue concerning the statute of limitations under
N.C. Gen. Stat. . 28A-19-3, as it pertains to the unnamed
defendant, GEICO. This argument is based on the provisions of N.C.
Gen. Stat. . 28A-19-3(i), which deals with claims against an estate
for which there is insurance coverage. The record and plaintiff's
brief are devoid of any indication of applicable insurance coverage
other than that provided by GEICO. Moreover, appellant in her
brief, expressly acknowledges that:
[I]t appears that the Plaintiff's claim
against the deceased defendant's personal
assets based on Lassitor [v. Faison, 111 N.C.
App. 206, 432 S.E.2d 373 (1993),] was barred
one year after Mr. Mason was appointed as
Administrator of the Estate of Clarence
Dicks[,] which was October 24, 2004.
“Rule 28 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that
questions not presented and discussed in a party's brief are deemed
abandoned.” Gentile v. Town of Kure Beach, 91 N.C. App. 236, 237,
371 S.E.2d 302, 303 (1988).
Appellant abandoned her arguments against the remaining
defendant. We are compelled to dismiss her appeal.
Dismissed.
Judges GEER and STEPHENS concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***