Hill

<bold>1. Contempt — civil contempt — no underlying order or judgment — failure</bold> <bold>to give adequate notice — failure to make appropriate findings of</bold> <bold>fact</bold> <block_quote> The trial court erred by holding defendants in civil contempt for failure to pay $2,480 in a summary ejectment case, because: (1) the contempt order was not based on any underlying order or judgment since no judgment was reduced to writing as required by N.C.G.S. § <cross_reference>1A-1</cross_reference>, Rule 58; (2) even if the trial court's underlying judgment had been properly entered, defendants had not been given adequate notice of the contempt proceeding when defendants were notified at the end of trial that they would be held in contempt until the debt was paid and they were taken immediately to jail with no good cause shown in violation of N.C.G.S. § <cross_reference>5A-23</cross_reference>(a); and (3) the trial court failed to make the appropriate findings of fact including willfulness and the ability to comply, and to the contrary the court found defendants were not able to pay the court ordered amount.</block_quote> <bold>2. Appeal and Error — appealability — outside scope of order</bold> <block_quote> Although defendant's remaining arguments concern errors that allegedly occurred during trial relating to the admission of evidence and rulings on defendants' defenses and counterclaims, these assignments of error are dismissed because: (1) they are not properly before the Court of Appeals since they are outside the scope of the order being appealed; and (2) the notice of appeal references the order entered on 6 September 2006 which found defendant in civil contempt, and thus defendants have properly appealed only from the court's determination of civil contempt.</block_quote>

<bold>1. Pleadings — Rule 11 sanctions — factual</bold> <bold>investigation</bold> <block_quote> There was sufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding that plaintiff violated the factual certification requirement of N.C.G.S. § <cross_reference>1A-1</cross_reference>, Rule 11, justifying the imposition of sanctions in a case which rose from the division of family assets. An attorney representing the estate made an independent investigation and concluded that there was no factual basis for claims of fraud or undue influence; a similar inquiry by plaintiff would have found ample evidence that his mother was competent and fully involved in managing both her business and personal affairs until her death.</block_quote> <bold>2. Pleadings — Rule 11 sanctions — entire record</bold> <bold>considered</bold> <block_quote> The entire record was before the court at a Rule 11 sanctions hearing, not just plaintiff's testimony that he made a reasonable inquiry, because defendant's motions were explicitly based on the record of the case.</block_quote> <bold>3. Pleadings — frivolous appeals — authority to</bold> <bold>sanction under Rule 11</bold> <block_quote> The authority to sanction frivolous appeals by shifting expenses incurred on appeal is exclusively granted to the appellate courts under Appellate Rule 34. The trial court here abused its discretion by awarding under Rule 11 attorney fees and costs incurred by defendants in defending plaintiff's appeal to the Court of Appeals and his petition to the Supreme Court.</block_quote><page_number>Page 310</page_number> <bold>4. Pleadings — Rule 11 sanctions — discovery</bold> <bold>resulting from complaint</bold> <block_quote> Although plaintiff argues that the proper basis for discovery sanctions is N.C.G.S. § <cross_reference>1A-1</cross_reference>, Rule 26(g) rather than N.C.G.S. § <cross_reference>1A-1</cross_reference>, Rule 11, the document in issue here is plaintiff's complaint and Rule 11 appl