Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Stevenson Ex Rel. Long v. Joyner
Citations: 558 S.E.2d 215; 148 N.C. App. 261; 2002 N.C. App. LEXIS 2Docket: COA01-237
Court: Court of Appeals of North Carolina; January 2, 2002; North Carolina; State Appellate Court
C. Wayne Joyner and his wife, Carol Jean Joyner, appeal an interlocutory order from the Court of Appeals of North Carolina that compels Mr. Joyner to answer deposition questions posed by the plaintiff, Sylvia Frye Long, acting as guardian for her aunt, Esmay Frye Stevenson. The plaintiff's action includes claims of undue influence, fraud, and lack of mental capacity against the defendants. During the deposition, Mr. Joyner's counsel instructed him not to answer certain questions, citing attorney-client privilege, which led the plaintiff to file a motion to compel. Judge Timothy S. Kincaid subsequently ordered Mr. Joyner to respond, prompting the defendants' appeal. The appeal is dismissed because the defendants did not demonstrate that a substantial right would be affected by the inability to appeal the interlocutory order. Interlocutory orders do not typically allow for appeal unless they dispose of one or more claims or parties with a certification of no just reason to delay the appeal, or if delaying the appeal would irreparably impair a substantial right. The burden of proving grounds for an interlocutory appeal lies with the appellant, who failed to meet this requirement. Additionally, amendments to North Carolina Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(b) mandate that appellants must provide a statement of grounds for appellate review in their briefs; however, this amendment does not retroactively apply to briefs filed before its effective date. Appellate courts typically do not review discovery orders due to their interlocutory nature, with a narrow exception for orders that include findings of contempt or sanctions. In the case discussed, the trial court compelled a witness to answer deposition questions but did not impose sanctions or find contempt. Defendants argued that the discovery order impaired a substantial right, referencing the case Evans, where an appeal was allowed due to significant materials deemed protected by attorney-client privilege. However, the current case is distinguishable from Evans, as it involves only a few deposition questions rather than extensive documentation and internal processes. The defendants did not provide their deposition responses for in camera review to establish the claimed privilege. The court concluded that a substantial right was not affected, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as interlocutory. The motion to dismiss the appeal was granted, with judges Timmons-Goodson and Tyson concurring.