Whitman v. Forbes

10 Citing cases

  1. Finney v. Finney

    225 N.C. App. 13 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 11 times

    It is well established that "[l]ay opinions as to the value of the property are admissible if the witness can show that he has knowledge of the property and some basis for his opinion." Whitman v. Forbes, 55 N.C.App. 706, 711, 286 S.E.2d 889, 892 (1982). Further, the owners of property have generally been held to have both a knowledge and basis for the testimony as to the value of their property.

  2. United Leasing Corp. v. Guthrie

    666 S.E.2d 504 (N.C. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 3 times
    Finding project manager's lay opinion as to value of inventory admissible

    This Court has held that “ [l]ay opinions as to the value of [ ] property are admissible if the witness can show that he has knowledge of the property and some basis for his opinion." Whitman v. Forbes, 55 N.C.App. 706, 711, 286 S.E.2d 889, 892 (1982) (citing Wyatt v. Railroad, 156 N.C. 307, 315, 72 S.E. 383 (1911); Power & Light Co. v. Merritt, 50 N.C.App. 269, 273, 273 S.E.2d 727, 731, disc. rev. denied, 302 N.C. 220, 276 S.E.2d 914 (1981)).          Here, Pittman testified by videotaped deposition that he had worked for various companies owned by Joseph Guthrie, including American.

  3. United Leasing Corp. v. Guthrie

    192 N.C. App. 623 (N.C. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 1 times

    This Court has held that "[l]ay opinions as to the value of [] property are admissible if the witness can show that he has knowledge of the property and some basis for his opinion." Whitman v. Forbes, 55 N.C. App. 706, 711, 286 S.E.2d 889, 892 (1982) (citing Wyatt v. Railroad, 156 N.C. 307, 315, 72 S.E. 383 (1911); Power Light Co. v. Merritt, 50 N.C. App. 269, 273, 273 S.E.2d 727, 731, disc. rev. denied, 302 N.C. 220, 276 S.E.2d 914 (1981)). Here, Pittman testified by videotaped deposition that he had worked for various companies owned by Joseph Guthrie, including American. Pittman held the position of "project manager" and "helped set up new stores whenever [Joseph Guthrie] acquired a company, or [found] a new building, or moved inventory around to the stores for sales, helped hire managers, sales people, [and] set up dumpster companies."

  4. Overstreet v. Kentucky Cent. Life Ins.

    747 F. Supp. 1195 (W.D. Va. 1990)   Cited 1 times

    Constructive trusts arise out of the existence of actual or presumptive fraud for which equity requires the transfer of beneficial title to some person other than the holder of legal title. Leatherman v. Leatherman, 297 N.C. 618, 256 S.E.2d 793 (1979); Whitman v. Forbes, 55 N.C. App. 706, 286 S.E.2d 889 (1982). There must be evidence of fraud, breach of duty, or some other wrongdoing by Kentucky Central in order to impose a constructive trust.

  5. F6 Land Co. v. Edwards

    877 S.E.2d 476 (N.C. Ct. App. 2022)

    Allegations of fraud are rarely resolved in the pleading or summary judgment stage because the cause of action "usually requires the determination of a litigant's state of mind." Johnson v. Phoenix Mut. Life Ins. Co. , 300 N.C. 247, 260, 266 S.E.2d 610, 619 (1980) (overruled on other grounds , Myers & Chapman, Inc. v. Thomas G. Evans, Inc. , 323 N.C. 559, 568-69, 374 S.E.2d 385, 391-92 (1985) ); see alsoWhitman v. Forbes , 55 N.C. App. 706, 713, 286 S.E.2d 889, 893 (1982) (citation omitted). ¶ 23 Rule 9(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure requires: "[i]n all averments of fraud, ... the circumstances constituting fraud ... shall be stated with particularity."

  6. Murray v. Deerfield Mobile Home Park, LLC

    860 S.E.2d 323 (N.C. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 3 times

    ¶ 52 Allegations of fraud are rarely resolved at the pleading or summary judgment stage, because resolution of the cause requires the determination of a litigant's state of mind. Whitman v. Forbes , 55 N.C. App. 706, 713, 286 S.E.2d 889, 893 (1982) (citations omitted). ¶ 53 "In the event that a party fails to allege any special circumstances that could establish a fiduciary relationship, dismissal of a claim which hinges upon the existence of such a relationship would be appropriate."

  7. Gasper v. Brady Trane Serv., Inc.

    2021 NCCOA 7 (N.C. Ct. App. 2021)

    Harrold v. Dowd, 149 N.C. App. 777, 782, 561 S.E.2d 914, 918 (2002) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). ¶ 17 Allegations of fraud are rarely resolved in the pleading or summary judgment stage because resolution of the cause requires the determination of a litigant's state of mind. Whitman v. Forbes, 55 N.C. App. 706, 713, 286 S.E.2d 889, 893 (1982) (citations omitted). ¶ 18 If materials outside of the pleadings and arguments are considered, the Rule 12(c) motion is to be reviewed under the standards applicable to a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment. "If the evidentiary materials filed by the parties indicate that a genuine issue of material fact does exist, the motion for summary judgment must be denied."

  8. TD Bank, N.A. v. Williams

    247 N.C. App. 864 (N.C. Ct. App. 2016)

    This stems from the rule that lay persons may testify as to the value of real property "if the witness can show he has knowledge of the property and some basis for his opinion." See Finney v. Finney, 225 N.C.App. 13, 16, 736 S.E.2d 639, 642 (2013) (quoting Whitman v. Forbes, 55 N.C.App. 706, 711, 286 S.E.2d 889, 892 (1982) ).Here, Williams alleged TD Bank did not extract the full value of the property as a defense in his unverified answer filed 13 May 2013.

  9. Translland Fin. Serv., Inc. v. Pompeii

    612 S.E.2d 693 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005)

    Plaintiff's Vice President, Delana Caldwell ("Caldwell"), asserts in her affidavit that neither her nor plaintiff had any knowledge of fraudulent conduct on the part of Shinn, nor did "Transland ratify Ms. Shinn's fraudulent conduct." Defendant argues that plaintiff never addressed its constructive notice of Shinn's fraudulent conduct which creates a genuine issue of material fact of whether plaintiff was negligent and liable for Shinn's conduct. Whitman v. Forbes, 55 N.C. App. 706, 713, 286 S.E.2d 889, 893 (1982) (citing Johnson v. Insurance Co., 300 N.C. 247, 260, 266 S.E.2d 610, 619 (1980) (holding that allegations of fraud do not readily lend themselves to resolution by way of summary judgment because a cause of action based on fraud usually requires the determination of a litigant's state of mind), [ overruled on other grounds, Myers Chapman, Inc. v. Thomas G. Evans, Inc., 323 N.C. 559, 569, 374 S.E.2d 385, 392 (1988)]). Plaintiff's verified answers to defendant's interrogatories, signed by Caldwell, state that plaintiff's loan approval process contains several layers of audit and review.

  10. Henderson v. Henderson

    579 S.E.2d 520 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003)

    It is well established that "'[a] non-expert witness who has knowledge of value gained from experience, information, and observation may give his opinion of the value of personal property.'" Maintenance Equipment Co. v. Godley Builders, 107 N.C. App. 343, 355, 420 S.E.2d 199, 206 (1992), disc. review denied, 333 N.C. 345, 426 S.E.2d 707 (1993) (quoting Williams v. Hyatt Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 48 N.C. App. 308, 317, 269 S.E.2d 184, 190, disc. review denied, 301 N.C. 406, 273 S.E.2d 451 (1980)); see also Allen v. Allen, 61 N.C. App. 716, 720, 301 S.E.2d 514, 516-17 (1983) (allowing husband to testify as to the value of personal property where he had knowledge of and familiarity with the items through ownership); Whitman v. Forbes, 55 N.C. App. 706, 711, 286 S.E.2d 889, 892 (1982) (noting that lay opinions as to value are admissible if witness has knowledge and a basis for his opinion). "Any weight to be given to the opinion is for the trier-of-fact to determine."