Honestly, I’m not even sure if I can call this a hearing—it was a complete mess from start to finish.
Before the hearing, I had emailed opposing counsel the contract for transcripts of the other hearing as required for my interlocutory appeal and followed up on the notice of appeal. Although he acknowledged receiving my message and said he would address it a separate hearing, he never did.
When roll started for the hearing, I explained that I had filed a Notice of Appeal, which triggered an automatic stay under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-294, and that the hearing should be canceled. Instead of respecting that, opposing counsel chimed in to argue that the stay didn’t apply because he didn’t believe my rights were violated. Under Local Rule 3.4, any briefs or memoranda of law in opposition to a motion that seeks a final determination must be served at least two business days before the hearing. Opposing counsel never notified me of any objection to my Notice of Appeal—which, to be clear, is not even procedurally subject to objection. The Notice of Appeal is a statutory right under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-277 and § 1-294, and once filed, it automatically divests the trial court of jurisdiction over the appealed matters. The court should not have entertained any argument against the stay, especially one that was raised orally for the first time at the hearing without proper service, notice, or legal authority. The judge allowed this because he said he had a “feeling” it was going to happen, rescheduling us for an hour later so we could argue.
The hearing was scattered, didn’t stay on topic, and somehow devolved into the judge giving me legal advice—while explicitly stating he wasn’t giving legal advice. He minimized my position, exaggerated my actions, criticized other pro se litigants, and focused entirely on whether the motion to strike my complaint or if I was entitled to a stay, completely ignoring my other pending motions—including the motion to deem admissions admitted and the motion to strike their defective extension.
This was because opposing counsel said I hadn’t notified him, which was false. Nothing was supposed to be argued that day at all—this was supposed to be stayed—but instead, the judge acted without jurisdiction and then decided he needed more time to determine if the stay applied and come back tomorrow and he would let us know. The problem with this was is that I could come back the next day and I shouldn’t be required to without proper notice according to Rule 5.
I didn’t have this hearing professionally transcribed like the others because of cost, but I used automated transcription and still have the full audio recording as protection. I didn’t highlight this transcript because there are so many issues that it would be fully marked up. What disappointed me most was that I had initially respected this judge—he seemed fair and knowledgeable—but once it was just me and opposing counsel in the room, it was clear the tone shifted and I was again placed last on the docket. This wasn’t just procedural error—it was a failure to apply the law and a clear violation of judicial and professional conduct.
After the hearing, I immediately filed an Objection to Improperly Noticed Hearing and Assertion of Automatic Stay to preserve the record and assert that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to proceed. I also filed a Writ of Supersedeas along with a formal Motion to Stay to reinforce the automatic stay already in effect under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-294 and to prevent further unauthorized action by the trial court while my interlocutory appeal was pending.
Wake County Local Rule 3.4. Briefs and Memorandum of Law
Attorneys and self-represented persons shall serve on all other attorneys of record and self-represented persons any briefs or memoranda of law at least two (2) business days prior to the hearing on any motion seeking a final determination of the rights of any party as to any claim or defense, and shall serve affidavits in support of or in opposition to motions for summary judgment in accordance with Rule 5, Rule 6 and Rule 56 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. However, this Local Rule does not preclude an attorney or self-represented person from providing to the Court copies of cases or statutes relied upon at a hearing.
NC GS § 1‑294. Scope of stay; security limited for fiduciaries.
When an appeal is perfected as provided by this Article it stays all further proceedings in the court below upon the judgment appealed from, or upon the matter embraced therein, unless otherwise provided by the Rules of Appellate Procedure; but the court below may proceed upon any other matter included in the action and not affected by the judgment appealed from. The court below may, in its discretion, dispense with or limit the security required, when the appellant is an executor, administrator, trustee, or other person acting in a fiduciary capacity. It may also limit such security to an amount not more than fifty thousand dollars ($50,000), where it would otherwise exceed that sum.
North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct
A judge should uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary.
A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing, and should personally observe, appropriate standards of conduct to ensure that the integrity and independence of the judiciary shall be preserved.
Canon 3(A)(1):
A judge should be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it.
Canon 3(A)(4):
A judge should accord to every person who is legally interested in a proceeding, or the person’s lawyer, full right to be heard according to law.
Canon 3(A)(5):
A judge should dispose promptly of the business of the court.
Canon 3(B)(3):
A judge should take or initiate appropriate disciplinary measures against a judge or lawy er for unprofessional conduct of which the judge may become aware.
judge may become aware.
a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:
(1) make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;
North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.3. Candor to the Tribunal.
a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:
(1) make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;