Tuesday, March 16, 2010

South Avenue Court Case Judgment

At the March 2 meeting of the Oriental Town Board, Mayor Sage asked me if Judge Crow had signed the final judgment in the case of Town of Oriental vs Lacy Henry et al. I confirmed that he had. Here it is:

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, COUNTY OF PAMLICO, TOWN OF ORIENTAL, Plaintiff vs. LACY HENRY, and spouse, JUDY B. HENRY, and E. SHERRILL STYRON and spouse, PHYLLIS H. STYRON,* Defendants, IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE, SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION, File No.: 03-CVS-44

JUDGMENT:

"The Court, pursuant to the Opinion issued by the North Carolina Court of Appeals on July 7, 2009 and Judgment certified to the Superior Court of Pamlico County on the 27th day of July, 2009, in case No. COA 08-896, finds that there is no issue as to any material fact and that the Town of Oriental is the owner of the South Avenue terminus, more particularly described as the property located in the Town of Oriental bounded on the North by the land of Garland Fulcher, bounded on the South by the land of Lacy Henry, formerly Neuse Ways and Marine, Inc., and bounded on the West by Raccoon Creek (Oriental Harbor). Said land being the extension of South Avenue beyond the area of vehicular traffic and extending to Raccoon Creek and shown on a map entitled "Survey, Oriental Bulkhead Property" which is recorded in Map Book 1, Page 19, Pamlico County Registry, and that the Town of Oriental is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

"IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that summary judgment is granted in favor of the plaintiff, Town of Oriental, against the defendants, Lacy Henry and wife, Judy B. Henry and that the Town of Oriental is the owner of the afore described real property known as South Avenue terminus and the claims of the defendants to said property are hereby dismissed, and the costs be taxed against the defendants.
"This the 5th day of Feb, 2010.

"Signed
The Honorable Kenneth F. Crow
Superior Court Judge"

*Note: As I pointed out previously, the Styrons are no longer defendants in the case.

No comments: