Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 11-1469
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Bryson City.
Martin K.
Reidinger, District Judge. (2:09-cv-00003-MR-DLH)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Defendants-Appellants Donald D. Busby, Robert G. Ronk,
and Kennard Davis (hereinafter Appellants) appeal the district
courts
order
granting
Plaintiff-Appellee
SunTrust)
in
summary
SunTrust
SunTrusts
judgment
Mortgage,
action
to
in
Inc.
recover
favor
of
(hereinafter
a
deficiency
claim
that
the
district
court
erred
in
45-21.34
(2006).
The
district
court
held
that
which
North
Carolina
superior
court
had
already
enjoin
(2006).
resulted
the
The
in
foreclosure
court
the
under
concluded
rights
of
N.C.
that
the
Gen.
their
parties
Stat.
failure
to
the
45-21.34
to
do
so
foreclosure
forum.
The court also noted that its holding was in accord with
Merrill
Lynch
Bus.
Fin.
Servs.,
Inc. v.
Cobb,
No.
WL
3219353
magistrate
judges
(M.D.N.C.
report
and
Aug. 13,
2010)
recommendation,
(adopting
2010
WL
the
617368
find
persuasive.
the
district
courts
reasoning
to
be
the points upon which the court was required by the parties to
form an opinion and pronounce a judgment, but to every point
which properly belonged to the subject in litigation and which
the
parties,
brought
[e]xercising
forward
at
the
reasonable
time
and
diligence,
determined
might
have
respecting
it.
Painter v. Wake Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 217 S.E.2d 650, 655 (N.C.
1975).
See, e.g., In
1258
(W.D.N.C.
1975).
To
permit
challenges
to
the
to
45-21.34.
district
court
did
not
Accordingly,
err
in
we
finding
conclude
that
Appellants
the
defenses
that
the
district
court
did
not
err
We further
in
holding
that
Both cases
Bank & Trust Co. v. Cannon, 530 S.E.2d 581, 583 (N.C. Ct. App.
2000); Queen v. Queen, No. COA07-1207, 2008 N.C. App. LEXIS 638,
at *5-6 (N.C. Ct. App. Mar. 19, 2008).
by
themselves,
provide
competent
evidence
sufficient
to
district court did not err in determining that the county tax
assessors testimony did not provide additional support for the
tax valuation evidence and that his testimony as to valuation
was therefore inadmissible.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court.
legal
before
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
process.
AFFIRMED