|
July 25, 2002
|
Case No: NC Appeals Court, Case NO. COA01-661
|
|
North Carolina
Appellate Court
County of .
|
.
Represented by: .
v.
.
Represented by: .
|
Summary
See below for notes received on this case from a viewer.
|
|
|
Causes of Action: .
|
|
Citation: . |
|
Judge: The Honorable .
|
Lawsuit Text
Following are notes received on this case from a viewer:
Endowing a homeowners association with a new right to fine its members is no small issue. Besides the obvious interference Chapter 47F now has with previous contracts and contract law, there is the disturbing issue that this Appeals Court has totally disregarded our Founding Fathers wording, intent and spirit of our United States Constitution. On July 16, 2002, this Court endowed State authority for a Board of Directors to be the police, the judge, the jury, and the executioner of fines against its own members. This Court, regardless of Plaintiffs or Defendants previous or current arguments, should have considered the Constitutional Rights it has now destroyed for the citizens of North Carolina. I see little hope of our legislators repealing this law. Developers such as Weyerhaeuser, homeowner association attorneys, HOA management companies, as well as a host of other predators are joyous over these recent legislative and judicial happenings. It is unfortunate that legislators no longer appear to represent the common citizen but instead, give their foremost attention to large corporate interests. For our NC Courts to endorse such foolishness is sad to say the least.
The following paragraphs are excerpts from an Arizona Court of Appeals ruling sent to me from a citizen of that state. North Carolina Citizens should expect the same courtesy from its Courts as the Arizona Courts give their citizens. For the NC Appeals Court to bluntly conclude that: 3This issue is not properly presented or preserved for our consideration.2 is an outrage. This case should be appealed to the North Carolina Supreme Court.
"The Court of Appeals has discretionary authority to consider an argument for the first time on appeal when a defendant asserts that a statute is void. > Fuenning v. Superior Ct. in and for the County of Maricopa, 139 Ariz. 590, 594, 680 P.2d 121, 125 (1983); > State v. Junkin, 123 Ariz. 288, 290, 599 P.2d 244, 246 (Ariz.App.1979), cert. denied, > 444 U.S. 983, 100 S.Ct. 489, 62 L.Ed.2d 411 (1979).
Petitioners urge for the first time to this Court that the interpretation given > A.R.S. s 23--1023 (1965) by the Court of Appeals in its decision in this case violates [107 Ariz. 574] Art. 18, s 6, A.R.S. of the Arizona Constitution. > ([FN3]) Respondents argue that this constitutional question may not be considered by us for the reason that questions not raised in the lower court may not be raised for the first time in an appellate tribunal. We would agree that this is an entirely correct statement of the general rule. We are of the opinion, however, that this case falls within one of the well established exceptions to that rule. It has been repeatedly held by this Court that if the question is one of 'a general public nature, affecting the interests of the state at large' jurisdiction will be granted. > South Tucson v. Board of Sup'rs of Pima County, 52 Ariz. 575, 583, 84 P.2d 581, 584 (1938). See also, > Roberts v. Spray, 71 Ariz. 60, 223 P.2d 808 (1950); > Washington Nat. Ins. Co. v. Employment Security Comm'n., 61 Ariz. 112, 144 P.2d 688 (1944); > Arnold v. Knettle, 10 Ariz.App. 509, 460 P.2d 45 (1969)."
|
|
