All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the North Carolina Reports and North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the North Carolina Reports and North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative.
Small Claims--de novo appeal to district court--applicable procedures--necessity for findings and conclusions
The decision of the Court of Appeals affirming a district court order requiring defendant
to repay to plaintiff $2000 that plaintiff allegedly paid to defendant in error is reversed for the
reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals that (1) the informal processes of
the small claims court do not continue in a de novo appeal to the district court; (2) the district
court erred by failing to set forth proper findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding
whether plaintiff had been obligated to pay $2,000 to defendant; and (3) the district court must
address the issue as to whether plaintiff should have had notice of a voluntary dismissal taken in
an earlier action by the present defendant.
Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of
a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 168 N.C. App. 126, 607
S.E.2d 38 (2005), affirming a judgment entered on 8 August 2003
by Judge Thomas G. Foster, Jr. in District Court, Guilford
County. Heard in the Supreme Court 12 September 2005.
No appearance or brief for plaintiff-appellee.
Douglas S. Harris for defendant-appellants.
PER CURIAM.
For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion, the
decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and remanded.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***