|
-�I. 1�:' it•,'•vi'' =,1.1,'::a.yyy�}.:'N,t j- .Y-•: ...`Cfx:-.,.i' .y •1 4-,..,2.:,,,,,..„..,,,.......,-,..„1 7-•i:}_•,�;:i,: .„..5.,-, E•."•.',l J.•:T.J?t.• -F ..r:.:._
<br /> 'ij li :?.{ "r;f iftsi.;; +'.:'r1 y..,,C;ai .:i .t..;+. n• • ,..,4- ,ti . r r: • `-.-vr,:t t.�--.. ..1.,_• =r:;.
<br /> •,r.r..Ii-�-••a•:1„� t :.�;"ti;• -••ii«- ti'•.'i� .3" ;•ti`' r- H'�s,,{•'!'�.:.G 'c_.!=',1C}..51,�:.;,?!r__t.i:"..:•.• ,-...•';'',:".;
<br /> ti•••. ,- r:��1•: �: .sr�.%!L.3':i.'a.•niifl' ,I;ro S•;�,a,.-.1„".•'•+3 ^... '• •�;�.Y
<br /> k r. T••4^.^i7.= t i �`,.!'i• F� I. ' r ,.Y: -.,.-:.M1%.: :3+.•{i
<br /> -2'-:ry:.ctTiv .:: h=;•ty+�.i:�Er'.,:.�♦ -�r�•'"�il;•i" 'S}, .•{qr:•:�l!`N. A-�. .11.rk:'!�::!•,::,.•{ y� T::T ��'k'y" i.. {
<br /> �a=:;, r ;rF:11i S•. i ;7i: 7 i_ *�c .�,�}1y_:Lit' �r;, T
<br /> .T7:'�:-�t'•:'J'.: '}. .i� .ea ^[��ti •�� ' � r�j'•-ti':.�; -lrx�':'-'.::y:,rt-;,L.•,•�St(:9.!;•1 _�r,�,,.yt. •:i-• .4,... r. �- f
<br /> :a;'.: :�' 11$$,,,7.%.�.� ����q,.•,r....ib.•l.*Jt ,t^�;7'.M•^.1.S�1L�w`'�'u ?v,,:(:-.',�,,:L.(.� �.•..'.-,9.� •r;.;n: .}.�,.,�,�. gam, :/!'�. '` -••.,.�, ,�. .- .. �.•_
<br /> 22.f.4 't:`�`...t°i-,' .•d,.,.t,.,ttlt�.c J ,:,_,1- 1 •Lt�vl'r- K�AJi4 o:"�'y�• .-:S....,,:I-i: .:.r:34.:."1::,fis m'•-'j•4�7ti,•,..,•' Ji:.:?;:•fr.• �.•=;.
<br /> 'iF r fc?: - . ;ti.:?.il eM ... r ',�,6-1:�,;���•i:.,,�s�1,��;a:;�. /.w..� r;. ..'•<.,:.: �•,u,.
<br /> t1;r•[ ....7 .,Y. ,r , ..R:i'+c•FX3:oY�.at'w+�.: j-.p:�' +,-.i Y r' w: .,. l:T....I,;•�^.a,- ,,J
<br /> (Y'_ f •y: +!- .rte'.t::ycs... ....1.--
<br /> • ., i a it .i i. j i
<br /> -' t 1 0..1
<br /> i.•-Y••Y 1.: 236 N.C. 303 SU13ThI EASTF.R,N I(EI'()ItTCR, 2d SERIES
<br /> if
<br /> - % ; �- a r
<br /> et t ttsy, I I t•I}' t hic h milled the proviso in C.S., 3,x'9I. The.
<br /> .•:r'.'„¢•,:-"-- ft:. x'intion to sac:and hlt� failed , ,
<br /> 1 r, �•
<br /> •
<br /> r„ ;;P'::;:. to allege r:
<br /> a.,,r,,, , " «c;•; ? ge registration as required by law." amendment to G.S. 1--69.1,which added the
<br /> X14-'e. r tl After defendants effectively challenged requirement of an allegation of G-S, 66--68
<br /> ^ h - i plaintiff's capacity to sue in their converted recordation
<br /> 3 motions for summary j rdation before suit ma• t
<br /> LL • „ } x: brought common
<br /> k:
<br /> r;.":ro Iii udl,mt nt it t,ecamc t association in its common
<br /> I,,x�-,;,.'r.. : ! an unincorporated '
<br /> .-•.:.,y ,.rf,;;.;; if I incumbent upon the plaintiff to resent u ,
<br /> `r a , ;' P name,was enacted effective 1 October 1975•
<br /> `;:< -” s, :j.: ' forecast of evidence showing tbat there was
<br /> Therefore, in the face of any irreconcilable Z• .
<br /> :''''''''''.21'471 •71...r., ''.,.: -" l - . a triable issue on this question, See i osten conflict between the provisions of these two
<br /> I r c {�;-_z ,;} ii , t v, Morgan-Schulthclss Inc., 46
<br /> •7�:s� .:. �:: �; : • 321 265 N.C.App. statutes G.S_ I-69.1 being the later F
<br /> = • 321, 265 S.E.2d 6I5 (1980). Plaintiff has m, ci g he la er enact- ,
<br /> � t � a`: i failed to t nl,will control or be regarded tls a quali ,
<br /> ,,. ,. odoso. g i
<br /> c.: a:*•�� fication of the-earlier statute. See;State v.
<br /> :� ••..;r: ,.. [4-6) The record before us contains no Hutson, 10 N.C.App.•653, 179 •
<br /> :•1,5; '''.;, :•• •`'` ` • evidence of plaintiff's compliance with the S.E.2d 8 n
<br /> t � .;:. 1:;, P p (1971). We reach the same conclusion when
<br /> directives of C 5. J• to file the crrlifi_ subject mutter of the two s
<br /> tt,,�i ti; •j ? 1 6 ( , the s statutes is ;
<br /> _3r f I:I ctttu ns Set out in(;.�i.ff► fiR. The statutory ' t"cnmittccl, since the more particular iii 4
<br /> .' t?, ;-`,<i' �.`:4,• language of G.S. 1-69.1 is very clear and rectives of C.S. c+ would prevail over •
<br /> I-6_,1 w id g•
<br /> �y +, , �.,;;tzt„ ; specific, i.e., any unincorporated association the g-eneral recordation provisions of G.S. [..,;
<br /> + ?;.y i;:I 1 i desiring to commence litigation in its corn
<br /> 66-68 et seq. See, Foul Stores v. Lo •
<br /> an!oarcl pf
<br /> <%,,,-: '•"� :;'-( monly held name must allege the location Alcoholic L'ontnil, 263 N,C. 6><t, 151 S.C?d
<br /> r t, 'ti;;,:•• •ri' i - • of the recordation required h G. 582 19° ) The rcquiremt•nts of G.S. 1-69.1
<br /> Applying the well-settled principle that are mandatory and failure to satisfy them ;j
<br /> i t.,: ' 3 +.-' j r statutes in derogation of the common I:Iw is not exonerated 1>}'.G.S. Gti•7I. ' •
<br /> -:.;• ••j ti'' i•. Must
<br /> •a= ::._t :,.i t; be strictly construed, we find the ac- For the foregoing reasons, tv '1
<br /> ~ g `t' e hold the
<br /> ..� Lion of the trial court correct in dismissing dismissal of plaintiff's action to ix: proper.
<br /> 4 1 1-. t•. plaintiff's complaint for failure to comply
<br /> ;`•,•. _ ..r�.; 1It 1; tv'th these statutory into ate::. '�eu, 11f[irm,:d.
<br /> t''1Kr' ;>:. i .F inglon v. Bradford, 2-12 N.C, 159,86 S.1,','2' %t•1; ,
<br /> ' [.GS and l3E
<br /> „�.�:;> .,z '. I:•:i . 925 1915. (:TUh', JJ., cunt concur. s
<br /> =:•. ( ) Strict construction of Ci.ti. 1- l:
<br /> ' ' 'h , ; 1 requires that, before an unutrrrporulc•,1 i
<br /> ,- ;9; i association may }>; w
<br /> .=.;�,. ,:;Z;;�_,. ;; ' tin the privilege of lnstl- hoh,..mstr}s}t N
<br /> �c�';:.a.:.t0,74 0,'I - tutilt• privilege o T 5 l :
<br /> .M:?•:;- 1-_,,•- t.V ; 6 a lawsuit in its common name, first. • r
<br /> ,,, r : ,, 11 ?: there must be recordation of the neve:isary
<br /> q
<br /> •[`tom " {• 1'y;;'• information r' ' •
<br /> ' i E, x'' 10 ,(i required ti} GS. f;6 G5 and
<br /> '.;'i. _,•,r=+ f ;•},ti: then allegation of
<br /> - ,1 its specific location.
<br /> "'�! -;4 �,-�c � We I3AUCt)tiI•S NUF{e;Fltl" G M1 „
<br /> ..tviz c,: x:-; _. ,::I% a are not unaware of the seeming con_ U.iFA.'YY,
<br /> pt trndictiun between the specific mandate: of n corporation
<br /> =F�ii': •' :;;. recordation r to filing.•-,::::„.;..1.:1,,:„',,c;;}h.. •,,,,:t,-•, n prix l,'an action tehirh is v •
<br /> + {' in ' 11tI;(:I(I.I;t�'it11R(i q,.
<br /> ' ? e .�;�,,,, r;.%,,c,t, et out G.S. 1• G.I.1 and the'pruvisic,ns of COUNTY,a' iy� :: NORTH
<br /> 1ItTI f
<br /> :,,ti t : i.;, t, IG.S. 66•-71. This Iust statute classifies the
<br /> CAltt)1.)NA, Edwin I3. Peacock, dr.,
<br /> ;rr,u..<g vr*i :. it!. ( failure to record under G.S. 6t;-68 Chairman and, Member of the Board of l
<br /> WI u
<br /> r.v ,�,-�t i'.i misdemeanor which may result in a penait} County Commissioners of blcrklenbur j
<br /> r ,i's� rs ,,� `i collectible in a civil action and states in County, North Carolina, and William H. r''
<br /> .•.*r{ryt ,,`:sf .: .,,•_t subsection (1r) that the "I iilure of Rose, Elisabeth C.Hair,
<br /> any pet_ , air, W.Thomas Ray
<br /> C
<br /> Y = ` :t
<br /> on to com!• with lho provisions of this and Ann U. Thomas, DlembEra of the per-
<br /> il
<br /> •
<br /> lit` "' t Article dues not ,r t�tt a recover b such
<br /> hoard of Count '• l
<br /> t' ` 1 } } y Cornm[ssioncrx of
<br /> k.,_ 1 t e,.,l
<br /> 7.; ;4a;4yk IT I�eryon in any civil action brought in ttny of �I1tkltnburg County, North Carolina '
<br /> : ,- ,',':'g :} I , the courts of this State." A p l in c r 2}2
<br /> ;i:;;t• a�a:,' ••' If Y' 1~settled
<br /> ' rules of statutory No. R' 6SC61•3, rt
<br /> 'Z=a'>r`• 't•i construction, we conclude Court of Appeals of North Carolina
<br /> ; cc;;S:;4 ;; that th
<br /> '; r-' ti,• ; the provisions 1-.69.1 innt:u,I in f
<br /> _;: ?yir> t j isions of G.S.
<br /> ..?`•'r - T•- =. :;;;;i this case. .`hat is no:v ' .
<br /> ; = �,,�f: i G.S.6fi-7I,allowing June 7, 1+98:3. _=
<br /> �r
<br /> �, v 1.:.11111" recovery in a civil action in spite of slatuto- 'r'
<br /> =4 Y 'JAI!: '�i ,I l ry noncompliance, came into being by the •
<br /> �"° '� = {' ( i enactment of •, Public 3 i,tndo::ncr sought a declaratory ud i
<br /> ,-;;ry _z' j l lI chapter Late; J1(lt, went.nl Lb it its 19.G.acre Cra of }J g- I_
<br /> _ ' , teL land was n t' •
<br /> I r,7,r'•. '.1
<br /> •
<br /> t ' t-
<br /> .,^%••:A':"% 1, 1'` •
<br /> _ •••,
<br /> t4 • Spit%'( lr '' �; ` ! -•ti='t�: . ,-t•+ ,�; 4; �=s:"!
<br />
|