Opinion
No. COA15-1119
06-21-2016
IN THE MATTER OF: CAROLE WINIFRED CRANOR, Respondent.
West Law Offices, P.C., by James P. West, for the Petitioner-Appellant Frank Taylor Cranor. Wyrick Robbins Yates & Ponton LLP, by K. Edward Greene and Tobias S. Hampson, for the Appellee Lynn Andrews.
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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 Procedure. Durham County, No. 15 M 56; 13 SP 721 Appeal by Petitioner-Appellant Frank Cranor from orders entered 21 May 2015 by Judge Paul C. Ridgeway in Durham County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 12 May 2016. West Law Offices, P.C., by James P. West, for the Petitioner-Appellant Frank Taylor Cranor. Wyrick Robbins Yates & Ponton LLP, by K. Edward Greene and Tobias S. Hampson, for the Appellee Lynn Andrews. DILLON, Judge.
This is the second of two separate appeals in this matter. The first involved an appeal from an order entered in December 2014 (the "December Order"), setting the amount of attorneys' fees and costs owed to Mr. Cranor by Ms. Andrews.
In this present appeal, Mr. Cranor challenges a May 2015 order in which the trial court concluded that its prior December Order was an "order" rather than a "judgment," and therefore must be enforced as such.
Frank Cranor initially gave notice of appeal from two orders entered 21 May 2015; however, he did not present any argument before this court on the second order. Accordingly, this issue is not properly before this Court. See N.C. R. App. P. 28(b)(6).
We conclude that this present appeal has been mooted by our resolution of the first appeal in which we reversed the December Order to the extent that it imposed attorneys' fees and costs on Ms. Andrews. In re Cranor, ___ N.C. App. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___ (May 17, 2016) (No. COA 15-541). See Roberts v. Madison County Realtors Assn., 344 N.C. 394, 398-99, 474 S.E.2d 783, 787 (1996) ("A case is 'moot' when a determination is sought on a matter which, when rendered, cannot have any practical effect on the existing controversy."). Our Supreme Court has instructed that an appeal presenting a question which has become moot "should be dismissed, for courts will not entertain or proceed with a cause merely to determine abstract propositions of law." In re Peoples, 296 N.C. 109, 147, 250 S.E.2d 890, 912 (1978).
We note that Ms. Andrews has not filed a motion to dismiss this present appeal for mootness based on our opinion in the first appeal. We, however, dismiss this present appeal ex mero motu.
DISMISSED.
Judges DAVIS and ZACHARY concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).