Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Kathy Allen, Petitioner v. Arthur Allen, et al.

Supreme Court briefJan 26, 2024

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

INDEX OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A - Decisions of the State Court of Appeals

APPENDIX A

Appendix A-Exhibit 1 - Appellant's Motion To Mediate May 17, 2022

Appendix A-Exhibit 2 - Appellant's Opposition to Appellee Motion to Withdraw as

Attorney and Rule 38 Substitution-June 7, 2022......................................................

Appendix A-Exhibit 3 - Appellant's Partial Opposition to Appellees' Motion for

Extension to Brief Due Date and Rule 38 Substitution- June 9, 2022.................

Appendix A-Exhibit 4 - Appellant’s Motion for Rule 38 Substitution - August 22,

2022.......................................................................................................................

Appendix A-Exhibit 5 - Appellant’s Amended Appellant Motion En Banc Rehearing

- February 27, 2023................................................................................................... 72

Appendix A-Exhibit 5A - Appellant's Motion to Transfer NCCOA Record to

NCSC - May 9, 2023....................................................................................

Appendix A-Exhibit 6 - Appellant’s Motion to Stay Mandate - February 27,

2023..............................................................................................................

Appendix A-Exhibit 6A - NCCOA Order Denied Appellant Opposition and

Supplement Record to Attorney Withdrawal and Rule 38 Motion - Doc. 16 - July 5,

2022..........................................................................................................................

Appendix A-Exhibit 6B - NCCOA Order Denied Appellant’s Rule 38 Motion Doc. #21 - August 19, 2022................................................................................

Appendix A-Exhibit 6C - NCCOA Order Granting Appellees’ Motion to Dismiss

(MTD) Doc. #18 - February 7, 2023......................................... ...........................

Appendix A-Exhibit 6D - NCCOA Order Denying Appellant’s Motion for an

Extension to File En Banc Rehearing Motion File Doc. #39 - February 23, 2023

Appendix A-Exhibit 6E - NCCOA Order Denying Appellant’s En Banc Rehearing

Motion Doc. #40 - March 3, 2023.......................................................... ..............

Appendix A-Exhibit 6F - NCCOA Order Denying Appellant’s Amended En Banc

Rehearing Motion Doc. #41 - March 3, 2023........................................................

Appendix A-Exhibit 6G - NCCOA Order Denying Appellant’s Motion to Stay

Mandate Doc. #42 - March 3, 2023..................................................................

Appendix A-NCCOA-Exhibit 1-Appellant's Motion To Mediate - May 17, 2022

10th DISTRICT

NORTH CAROLINA APPELLATE COURT

No. COA22-276

Appellant/Caveator2 Kathy R. Allen

Appellees Respondent 1 :Propounder 1

Arthur L. Allen (Deceased)

Respondent 2: Propounder 2 [sic] Steve R. Allen

Respondent 3: Propounder 3 Anthony A. Klish

Arthur L. Allen et. al.[sic]

From: Wake County

Case: #16-E-1390

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF: REBECCA BOWDEN ALLEN JOHNSON

Deceased Case #16-E-001390 (caveat for estate) (additional Wake County filings

pending #18-CVS-013119, special hearings and estate filings #18 SP1746 (foreclosure),

#17-SP-1397 (petition for administrator)), Petition #17SP000769 File No. From 06-E1397 (this ‘E’ number was provided with Petition and might be incorrect)’

Appellant’s [Unconsented] Motion to Mediation/Arbitration for 60 days and Stay brief for

30 days after that ends and until September 2, 2022

To the honorable court of appeals of North Carolina:

Why the mediation/arbitration is required

Appellant/Caveator2, Kathy R. Allen, hereby requests a 60-days for the parties to

mediate/arbitrate this appeal. Appellees’ attorney on 05-02-2022 told Appellant that the

party Arthur L. Allen because he is deceased was/is not being represented in this appeal—

seemingly just ignoring he existed and that the claims against him exists (or his own estate

exists). This action began long before Arthur L. Allen passed, and by at least N.C. App.

Rule 38 substitution because of death would be required not to ignore that there are claims

against him as lawyer Godwin suggests {infra).

This by the attorney seems incorrect and by N.C. App. Rules the Appellant wishes to

have time to mediate and arbitrate for the appeal considering the proposed is illogical for

this death and to the claims, and also as a family matter. Because this deceased member is

the Appellant’s oldest brother and his Superior Court lawyer (Anthony Klish) is also a

2 of 39

Appendix A-NCCOA-Exhibit 1-Appellant's Motion To Mediate - May 17, 2022

party to the lawsuit and this appeal. But also this will allow the parties, lawyers and

Appellant to discuss and view more about this substitution and the lawsuit. A different

lawyer (Anthony Klish) did the Wake County Superior Court case and a different lawyer

for this appeal was provided as attorney (C. Jordan Godwin). The civil action seemingly

has some ‘gaps’ in the timeline also for it for Arthur’s substitution and lack of attention to

it for the case.

Being so this motion for mediation/arbitration is being filed. This can be provided as

N.C. App. court-appointed mediation/arbitration rules sua sponte and submitted to the

appropriate N.C. App. court division for it and if not as personal/private

mediation/arbitration among the parties. In doing so the Appellant’s June 2, 2022 brief

then would be due 30 days after this mediation/arbitration period and by September 3,

2022 if that mediation/arbitration does not prove fruitful. Granting this motion does not

burden either party and would be useful for the appeal matter.

Requested other party consent

4. Appellant sent this motion for consent to the other party on 05-16-2022 approx. 2:00pm

EST with a copy of it and indicated if they do or have not replied by 4:00pm EST

tomorrow May 17, 2022 at 2:00pm EST the Appellant will file the motion

[Unconsented]. So time for mediation/arbitration and as a right is being requested as

supra.

Respectfully submitted this the 17th day of May, 2022.

s/ Kathy R. Allen {Pro Se)

Home address:

26 55th Street NE

Washington, DC 20019-6760

E-mail address:

allenkl 101@comcast.net

Telephone No: (202) 399-6225

Alternate Certificate of service address:

2526 Poole Road Raleigh, NC 27610-2820

3 of 39

Appendix A-Exhibit 2 NCCOA- Appellant's Opposition

to Appellee Motion to Withdraw as Attorney and Rule 38 - June 7, 2022

10th DISTRICT

NORTH CAROLINA APPELLATECOURT

No. COA22-276

Appellant/Caveator2 Kathy R. Allen

Appellees Respondent 1 :Propounder 1

Arthur L. Allen (Deceased)

Respondent 2: Propounder 2 [sic] Steve R. Allen

Respondent 3: Propounder 3 Anthony A. Klish

Arthur L. Allen et. al.[sic]

)

From: Wake County Case: #16-E-1390

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF:

REBECCA BOWDEN ALLEN

JOHNSON Deceased Case #16-E-001390

(caveat for

estate) (additional Wake

County filings pending #18-CVS-013119,

special hearings and estate filings #18

SP1746 (foreclosure), #17-SP-1397

(petition for administrator)), Petition

#17SP000769 File No. From 06-E1397 (this ‘E’ number was provided with

Petition and might be incorrect)’

APPELLANT’S OPPOSITION TO APPELLEES’ ATTORNEY GODWIN

06-03-2022 TO WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY FOR ARTHUR L. ALLEN (APPELLEE 11

To the honorable court of appeals of North Carolina:

Why this Opposition to Appellees’ Attorney Godwin to withdraw as Attorney for

Artur L. Alien (Appellee 1)

Appellant/Caveator2, Kathy R. Allen, is litigating pro se and in viewing FRAP

Rule 27 it provides for opposition to a motion for a response in 10 days and also by N.C.

App R. 37(a) and sems appropriate to filing this opposition, and hereby requests that

attorney Godwin’s motion to withdraw as Appelleel’s attorney be and must be rescinded

and corrected, and a Rule 38 substitution provided for him. This is because it is clear

Attorney Godwin he and the Wake Superior Court attorney Anthony A. Klish (Appellee3)

are providing incorrect filings to the appellate court on Appelleel who the Appellant was

told passed (by death) himself o/a December 2020. Appelleel is the Appellant’s oldest

brother and long before the November 16, 2021 hearing that this appeal is for began was a

party and one of the main ones (Propounder 1) for this Caveat filed in January 2020 and to

the Appellant’s other sibling’s (Caveatorl) Caveat o/a July 2017.

4 of 39

Appendix A-Exhibit 2 NCCOA- Appellant's Opposition

to Appellee Motion to Withdraw as Attorney and Rule 38 - June 7, 2022

It is clear Appellee3 should have provided before the November 16, 2021 hearing

by local Superior Court Rule 19(a) (2011). “A person is united in interest [, pursuant to

Rule 19 of the Rules of Civil Procedure,] with another party when that person's presence is

necessary in order for the court to determine the claim before it without prejudicing the

rights of a party before it or the rights of others not before the court.” But not as are

attorney Godwin and Appellee3 to try to argue he is ‘dead’, so big deal—and we will just

ignore Appelleel and the claims against him—-but at the same time purporting Appelleel

has his own estate matters.

When attorney Godwin filed two notices of representation on 04-19-2022 and 04-

21-2022 (correcting the 1st on to add a cc: for Appelleel’s wife). On 05-04-2022 after the

Appellant had to file for the 1st extension to file the brief on 05-01-2021 the Appellant

began sending E-mails to Godwin about the appeal. Below low are the more pertinent Emails to Appelleel’s substitution, but there are others that Appellant change make

available to the court to help know why attorney Godwin is being less than correct and

causing delays to the appeal as to Appelleel’s passing.

05-04-2022 - 2:16pm EST [Appellant] saying: “....Also I will say your notice of

representation has that you are representing Steve and Anthony, but there is another

party Arthur Allen as in the defendants for the case who should be represented, so you or

the Raleigh office should be providing for him in your replies and update this

accordingly. Can you also tell me how you in Fayetteville, NC a non-Wake County office

became the attorney of record for this, who retained you, and why you refiled your notice

of representation to cc: [Appellel’s wife]. In addition there should be cc: to another

Raleigh, NC Caveatorl whose name I do not see on your cc: list, but I included in the

filing and motion. I Will look to file the brief by the due date....”

05-04-2022 - 3:07pm EST Godwin replied saying “....Second, Arthur Allen is,

unfortunately, deceased, which makes it quite impossible for anyone to update him;

plus, his estate has not hired me to represent it in any capacity. Please refer to my

Amended Notice of Appearance and the rule(s) cited therein for your question regarding

5 of 39

Appendix A-Exhibit 2 NCCOA- Appellant's Opposition

to Appellee Motion to Withdraw as Attorney and Rule 38 - June 7, 2022

[Appellee 1 ’s wife]. Comments [Appellant]: This was a courtesy inquiry to you about

[Appelleel], and you should find the proper party and do due diligence and get

updated on this as he is a party and is some of the inconsistencies of this case as

represented. As I see it Arthur Allen remains a party and should so be included as

represented by you and Anthony Klish. I know Mary Flagler is his wife, and he is a

party who must be represented (and that is the case)....”

05-16-2022 - 3:51pm EST at last two weeks after 05-04-2022 [Appellant] Sent

an E-mail saying:” See subject and comments below in red. Also w[h]o is Karen Kueny in

the E-mail you sent.

05-16-2022 4:05pm EST ” I did not get your reply to the E-mail below in red

comments, and also was asking who is Karen [and on Appelleel’s substitution]”.

05-23-2022 “ .... I did not receive your reply to the E-mail below sent 05-20-2022

on if you would file your reply to the request consent for the mediation/arbitration

motion. Being so today I filed the attached 2nd motion for extension to file the

brief. Your courtesy copy is attached....”

As above there are other E-mails to attorney Godwin, but are not included above,

but then on Friday 06-03-2022 a month out attorney Godwin filed a withdraw motion that

said: “ ...Appelleel was deceased...[Godwin] is not representing his estate...his

[Godwin’s] 04-19-2022 notice of appearance was erroneously filed and the 04-21-2022

notice of appearance was just for Appellee2 and Appelle3..[the withdrawal] should be

granted for good cause and the interest of justice...” See attorney Godwin’s 06-03-2022

motion to withdraw. In addition Appellees have caused the Appellant a large monetary

loss in the Superior Court case to their conduct as the Appellant brief will show and doing

so ‘without a word’ to the judge(s) about it s true status of the Caveat matter. Being so see

SMITH v. BRYANT No. 685. 141 S.E.2d 303 (1965).. 264 N.C. 208 [and newer cases] “..

the lawyer owes the duty to perfect his withdrawal in time to prevent the necessity of a

continuance of the case. "An attorney at law is a.... officer of the court with an

obligation.. .[to].. .his clients, for the office of attorney at law is indispensable to the

administration of justice....”, which their purported argument for withdrawn without a

substitution fails.

6 of 39

• ■?

Appendix A-Exhibit 2 NCCOA- Appellant's Opposition

to Appellee Motion to Withdraw as Attorney and Rule 38 - June 7, 2022

10.

That being said attorney Godwin and Appellee3 have provided incorrectly how

Appellant 1 should be represented, but it is a substitution by Rule 38 that both attorney

Godwin and Appellee3 (the Wake Country attorney for this Caveat appeal) should provide

it not by R. 33 and R. 38 to just ignore the claims against Appellee 1 in this court and in the

November 16, 2021 hearing—that is also among the improper conduct to the appeal and

Appellee3’s failure. See Disciplinary Hearing Comm'n, N.C. State Bar v. Frazier, 141

N.C. App. 514, 540 S.E.2d 758 (2000) (misappropriation of client funds, advising client

not to attend hearing, and pressuring witness to recant prior truthful testimony);....”

11.

It is clear attorney Godwin delayed now for at least three weeks since the

Appellant sent the 05-04-2022 E-mail to him about Appelleel indicating he was still a

party to the case—and both he and Appellee3 have not agreed to continue not doing so and

filing this incorrect withdraw motion instead of providing a R. 38 substitution. If

Appelleel has an estate using that as their argument Appellee3 (Anthony Klish—his

Superior Court attorney) further concedes he misrepresented this to the court in the

Superior Court case and continued it in the November 16, 2021 hearing, which this

appeal’s Order is for and are among the ‘questions of material facts’ for the appeal and as

provided to attorney Godwin on 05-04-2022. The withdraw Order must be rescinded and

by R. 38 provide substitution instead i.e., attorney Godwin’s and his appeal case client

(Appellee3 as the trial court attorney) is both their responsibility to do before the appeal

and in the 11-16-2021 hearing—thus misrepresenting this substitution was required (at the

time) to Judge Rozier and now in the appeal, and are all questions for the appeal brief. Id

SMITH provide a new trial to a withdrawal “.. ..and that [plaintiff] had negligently or

contumaciously failed to attend to her case...”, but that also is not the Appellant’s case—

7 of 39

Appendix A-Exhibit 2 NCCOA- Appellant's Opposition

to Appellee Motion to Withdraw as Attorney and Rule 38 - June 7, 2022

but Appellees and Appllee3’s who should provide the correct their not providing for

Appelleel as party and in his passing.

12.

This R. 38 substitution is a pertinent question for inclusion on appeal and in the

brief— and for justice to the Appellant to include the proper party to the appeal and must

be corrected now before the brief is filed—not to withdraw inappropriately with no N.C.

App. R. 38 substitution for Appelleel. The Appellant requests that the court rescind the

06-06-2022 Order and that is what will serve justice—indeed there was no error by

attorney Godwin to filing the notice of representation—except to misrepresent this to this

court—just again both attorney Godwin and Appellee3’s misrepresentations about the

required R. 38 substitution in both this and the Superior Court hearing. See In re Hunoval,

294 N.C. 740, 247 S.E.2d 230 (N.C. 1977) [and newer cases] “.... [Attorney’s] dereliction

occurred in a matter pending before this Court and the underlying facts constituting the

dereliction are not in dispute and have, indeed, been admitted in writing by him....” In

additional Appellees made and continued to make misrepresentations about Appelleel in

this and in the Superior Court hearing—and the Appellant informed attorney Godwin of

this a month ago.

13.

It is clear they are intentionally delaying and prejudicial the Appellant to the

rebuttal and to timely file the appeal brief—using more of Appellant’s time for finishing

the brief because of it, and not following the N.C. App. Rules of Procedures. They should

be made to correct it and allow the Appellant at least 30 days for the brief for their

correction to complete it and provide the Appellant with other appropriate relief this court

provides as proper to allow the Appellant relief for attorney Godwin and Appellee3 for this

substation or lack thereof including remanding this appeal to Superior Court to correct the

8 of 39

Appendix A-Exhibit 2 NCCOA- Appellant's Opposition

to Appellee Motion to Withdraw as Attorney and Rule 38 - June 7, 2022

substitution there and to stay this appeal until it is corrected and the proper party

substituted by Superior Court Rule 19 or N.C. App. R. 38.

14.

If this Order were to go forth with no substitution how is the Appellant to rebuttal

the primary party who was Appellee 1. Does attorney Godwin and Appellee3 (Anthony

Klish) propose this appeal for claims against Appellee 1 ’ would not at any time be

determined—that is illogical—and R. 38 provides for substitution. The Appellant also

included in the E-mails to attorney Godwin that he should do some ‘due diligence’ to this

case, because Appellee 1 was still a party (although he suggests having passed Appellee3

and the claims against him were not to be represented any longer), but he did nothing to do

so and a necessary party is unrepresented (that is what he and Appellee3 were to correct.

Respectfully submitted this the 7th day of June, 2022.

s/ Kathy R. Allen {Pro Se)

Home address:

26 55th Street NE

Washington, DC 20019-6760

E-mail address:

allenkl 101 @comcast.net

Telephone No: (202) 399-6225

Alternate Certificate of service address:

2526 Poole Road Raleigh, NC 27610-2820

9 of 39

Appendix A-Exhibit 3-NCCOA-Appellant's Partial Opposition

to Appellees' Motion Extension Brief Due Date and Rule 38 - June 9, 2022

10th DISTRICT

NORTH CAROLINA APPELLATECOURT

No. COA22-276

Appellant/Caveator2 Kathy R. Allen

Appellees Respondent 1 :Propounder 1

Arthur L. Allen (Deceased)

Respondent 2: Propounder 2 [sic] Steve R. Allen

Respondent 3: Propounder 3 Anthony A. Klish

Arthur L. Allen et. al.[sic]

)

From: Wake County Case: #16-E-1390

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF:

REBECCA BOWDEN ALLEN

JOHNSON Deceased Case #16-E-001390

(caveat for

estate) (additional Wake

County filings pending # 18-CVS-013119,

special hearings and estate filings #18

SP1746 (foreclosure), #17-SP-1397

(petition for administrator)), Petition

#17SP000769 File No. From 06-E1397 (this ‘E’ number was provided with

Petition and might be incorrect)’

APPELLANT’S RESPONSE AND PARTIAL OPPOSITION

TO APPELLEES MOTION TO EXTEND BRIEF FILED 06-07-2022

To the honorable court of appeals of North Carolina:

Why this Opposition

1. Appellant/Caveator2, Kathy R. Allen, hereby provides this response and partial opposition

to appellees motion to extend brief filed 06-07-2022 is being filed to update the court on

the inconsistencies in attorney Godwin’s motion to extend. Although the Appellant is not

opposed to 30 days f or the due date for their extension to 08-01-2022 he has provided

incorrect arguments or lack thereof in it.

2. Attorney Godwin also did not provide the Appellant the courtesy or request for the consent

to the extension by N.C. App. Or do so later if he purports he did not have time to do so

(which he did), but more than that he appears to be ‘side-stepping’ the Appellees and his

responsibility to the appeal and trying to elude the true reason for the Appellant’s 3rd

extension granted 06-02-2022 was for her time to complete it and to the word count in it—

see Appellant’s 3rd Motion for Extension.

10 of 39

Appendix A-Exhibit 3-NCCOA-Appellant's Partial Opposition

to Appellees' Motion Extension Brief Due Date and Rule 38 - June 9, 2022

3. But more than that attorney Godwin (and his client Appellee3—who was the Wake

Country Superior Court lawyer for Appellee 1—the Appellant’s oldest brother who passed

himself o/a December 2020 is still the main party to the appeal and should be provided a

N.C. App. R. 38 substitution for the appeal.

Also their argument is incorrect that

Appellee l’s own estate should be represented or that it should but just not as an Appellee

or if so just not by these Appellees. That also is incorrect, and the short answer is that

means Appellee 1 goes ‘free and clear’ without being held accountable (in the superior court

case filed long before he passed or for this appeal—thus a necessary party remains

unrepresented for the claims against Appellee, and that is attorney Godwin’s and

Appellee3’s (he superior court lawyer) responsibility to provide the R. 38 or s Rule 19

should have been so in the November 16, 2022 hearing—that Appellee3 failed to do , but

not for them to suggest it is the Appellant who should reservice Appellee 1 in some manner

or that they should not do the R. 38 now in the appeal. That also is question for discussion

in the brief.

4. The Appellant thinks for that alone this court should sua sponte ‘stay’ this appeal and

remand Judge Rozier’s the 11-18-2021 Order to have ppellee3 (the superior court lawyer)

provide for this substitution or sua sponte this court provide an Order that attorney Godwin

and Appelle3 provide it by N.C. pp. R. 38 within 14 days and stay the briefing schedule

for briefs until it is filed—which the Appellant can then provide in the brief.

See also

Appellant’s 06-08-2022 response to attorney Godwin’s motion to withdraw as attorney for

Appellee 1, and SMITH v. BRYANT'Ho. 685. 141 S.E.2d 303 (1965).. 264 N.C. 208 [and

newer cases citing it] “...., the lawyer owes the duty to perfect his withdrawal in time to

11 of 39

Appendix A-Exhibit 3-NCCOA-Appellant's Partial Opposition

to Appellees' Motion Extension Brief Due Date and Rule 38 - June 9, 2022

prevent the necessity of a continuance of the case. "An attorney at law is a.... officer of the

court with an obligation...[to the public]...his clients, for the office of attorney at law is

indispensable to the administration of justice....”

Appellant’s arguments, opposition and discrepancies to Attorney Godwin’s 06-07-2020 Motion

to Extension (MotExf) Brief to 08-01-2022

5. See Attorney Godwin’s Motion to Extension:

6. p. 1

1-4 Appellant is not rebutalling except that this included for May 17,

2022 and May 23, 2022 a motion for time to mediation and arbitration that

requested the brief due date be extended to o/ September 1, 2022 to allow for this

mediation/arbitration as it were as personal mediation or court-appointed

mediation—one denied and the other as moot per that denial.

7. Tfl|5-6 Appellant is not rebutalling except that the brief filed 06-01-2022 before

midnight was to be and was requested by the 3rd Motion to Extension that day if the

3rd Motion to extend were granted the Appellant would replace the brief by the new

07-01-2022 due date requested in the motion and to the word counts and so s to not

have to delete important paragraphs in the brief in trying to meet the 06-01-2022

due date—the Order was granted the next day 06-02-2022, so the Appellant plans

to and will replace the brief. But attorney Godwin suggests in his 06-07-2022

motion for Appellees’ extension to file their brief by 08-01-2022 that the Appellant

should not replace it, which is incorrect and being so plans to replace it as supra.

That being so Appellees’ brief would be due by o/a 08-01-2022 and is the proper

due date anyway. If anything Appellees’ motion to extend their brief should be to

o/a 09-01 -2022. In fact the Appellant also sent attorney Godwin at least two E-mail

about the 06-02-2022 Order for the Appellant’s and told the Appellant would

replace her brief and do so by the due date 07-01-2022 and as of this filing plans to

do so.

8. t1f7-10 Appellant is not rebutalling except that as above any Appellee extension

should be to o/a 09-01-2022 not o/ 08-01-2022 (their request was to 08-02-2022),

and that attorney Godwin does not provide what the good cause is.

9. In conclusion attorney Godwin says f 10 the extension will provide for justice but he does

not say to for whom. It is clear he should be providing good cause to the appeal for the

Appellant’s several E-mails to him about Appellee 1 ’s substitution and that he should also

be providing for good cause to ‘Stay’ the appeal until both he and Appellee3 correct their

incorrect argument about Appelleel to the N.C. App. 38 or by superior court Rule 19 for

party substitution for this appeal.

12 of 39

Appendix A-Exhibit 3-NCCOA-Appellant's Partial Opposition

to Appellees' Motion Extension Brief Due Date and Rule 38 - June 9, 2022

10. That being so the Appellant does not oppose their 30 day extension but it should include

Appellees providing this substitution by the appropriate statute and allowing the Appellant

at least 14 days after that time to file her brief—that being so also requests this court Order

this substitution be provided timely, so the appeal can continue with the necessary parties

represented in the appeal and must be provided for in the appeal and its discussions as

supra.

Respectfully submitted this the 9th day of June, 2022.

s/ Kathy R. Allen {Pro Se)

Home address:

26 55th Street NE

Washington, DC 20019-6760

E-mail address:

allenkl 101@comcast.net

Telephone No: (202) 399-6225

Alternate Certificate of service address:

2526 Poole Road Raleigh, NC 27610-2820

13 of 39

Appendix A-Exhibit 4-Appellant's Motion to Stay Mandate - February 27, 2023

10th DISTRICT

NORTH CAROLINA APPELLATE COURT

No. COA22-276

Appellant/Caveator2 Kathy R. Allen

Appellees Respondent 1 rPropounder 1

Arthur L. Allen (Deceased)

Respondent 2: Propounder 2 [sic] Steve R. Allen

Respondent 3: Propounder 3 Anthony A. Klish

Arthur L. Allen et. al.[sic]

MOTION TO STAY MANDATE

From: Wake County Case: #16-E-1390

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF:

REBECCA BOWDEN ALLEN JOHNSON

Deceased Case #16-E-001390 (caveat for estate)

(additional Wake County filings pending #18-CVS-013119,

special hearings and estate filings #18 SP1746 (foreclosure),

#17-SP-1397 (petition for administrator)),

Petition #17SP000769 File No.

From 06-E-1397 (this ‘E’ number was provided

with Petition and might be incorrect)’

APPELLANT’S MOTION TO STAY MANDATE

To The February 7, 2023 and February 23, 2023 Order (Indicating

No Opinion Was Filed for Appeal)

Table of Contents

DISCREPANCIES IN THE N.C. APP. RULES AND THE NC-COA ORDERS

DENY APPELLEES ANY COSTS AND LAWYER FEES AND PURPORTED SANCTIONS FOR

HAVING TO AND TO REPLY TO THIS MOTION OR APPEAL...................................................

IN SUMMARY THIS STAY OF THE MANDATE IS REQUESTED FOR THIS APPEAL

Appellant/Caveator2, Kathy R. Allen, who is having to proceed pro se is filing this as

N.C. App. Rule 8 or more appropriate rule for motions to stay the mandate for this appeal until

both the N.C. App. 31.1 (d) February 23, 2023 ‘ Motion for En Banc Re-hearing’ {Doc. #39) and

the ‘Amended Motion for En Banc Re-hearing’’ being filed February 27, 2023 (today) are ruled.

14 of 39

Appendix A-Exhibit 4-Appellant's Motion to Stay Mandate - February 27, 2023

The February 7, 2023 {Doc. #18) and February 23, 2023 {Doc. #39) Orders by the NC-

COA do not indicate who or if they were decided by the judge-panel of Judges Chris Dillon,

Tobias Hampson, and Jefferson Griffin are excessively contrary to the N.C. App. rules for

opinions as published or unpublished.

This deviates from the standard for the appellate court rules forjudge panel rulings and to

opinions by N.C. App. R. 32 and is contrary to both rule precedence and substantial rights and

due process by the 5th and 14th amendments and at least by N.C. App. R. 30(e)((4) for

requesting an opinion.

DISCREPANCIES IN THE N.C. APP. RULES AND THE NC-COA ORDERS

This motion to stay the mandate is requested until these en banc R. 31.1(d) re-hearing

motions are ruled and after that until any subsequent N.C.G.S. 7A-27- N.C.G.S. 30- 32, writ of

certiorari or similar motions and notice s of appeal of the NC-COA for this appeal are

determined to be filed or by the appropriate N.C. App. R. 14-16 (N.C.G.S. 7A-30 to N.C.G.S.

32) after the February 23, 2023 {Doc. #40) and this February 27, 2023 motions is ruled or denied

as the final en banc motion.

DENY APPELLEES ANY COSTS AND LAWYER FEES AND PURPORTED SANCTIONS

FOR HAVING TO AND TO REPLY TO THIS MOTION OR APPEAL

It is clear Appellees misrepresented the status of this case to the Appellant’s mother’s

‘Will’ and the Appellant’s efforts to get this case on-track, for estate administration. Appellees

had several opportunities to correct their wrong but continued their misrepresentations.

Appellees also ‘without a word’ to correct the deficiency of the requirement for opinions they

continued their wonton conduct to not allow due process for this appeal. Appellees must be held

accountable, and this case and appeal view for its merits and be denied any costs for this appeal,

because it is their conduct not the Appellant’s that cause the filing of the case in Wake County

Superior Court and this appeal.

15 of 39

Appendix A-Exhibit 4-Appellant's Motion to Stay Mandate - February 27, 2023

IN SUMMARY THIS STAY OF THE MANDATE IS REQUESTED FOR THIS APPEAL

The Appellant files this motion to stay until the motions as supra are ruled by the judgepanel of Judges Chris Dillon, Tobias Hampson, and Jefferson Griffin.

It does not prejudice any of the parties except the Appellant who should maintain the

timeline for the appeal and of it to the N.C. Supreme Court for review by the appropriate statute

upon a ruling of the filed ‘En banc rehearing’ and ‘ Amended En banc Re-hearing’ motions so as

to properly argue the dismissal by the proper N.C. Supreme Court or similar (e.g.) U.S.D.C. in

the Court of Appeals statute.

Respectfully submitted this the 27th day of February, 2023.

s/ Kathy R. Allen {Pro Se)

Home address:

26 55th Street NE

Washington, DC 20019-6760

E-mail address:

allenkll01@comcast.net

Telephone No: (202) 399-6225

Alternate Certificate of service address:

2526 Poole Road Raleigh, NC 27610-2820

16 of 39

Appendix A-NCCOA-Exhibit 5 Amended Appellant's

Motion En Banc Rehearing - Februry 27, 2023

10th DISTRICT

NORTH CAROLINA APPELLATE COURT

No. COA22-276

Appellant/Caveator2 Kathy R. Allen

Appellees Respondent 1 :Propounder 1

Arthur L. Allen (Deceased)

Respondent 2: Propounder 2 [sic] Steve R. Allen

Respondent 3: Propounder 3 Anthony A. Klish

Arthur L. Allen et. al.[sic]

AMENDED MOTION FOR EN BANC REHEARING

From: Wake County Case: #16-E-1390

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF:

REBECCA BOWDEN ALLEN JOHNSON

Deceased Case #16-E-001390 (caveat for estate)

(additional Wake County filings pending #18-CVS-013119,

special hearings and estate filings #18 SP1746 (foreclosure),

#17-SP-1397 (petition for administrator)),

Petition #17SP000769 File No.

From 06-E-1397 (this ‘E’ number was provided

with Petition and might be incorrect)’

APPELLANT’S AMENDED MOTION FOR EN BANC REHEARING

To The February 23, 2023 Order Indicating

No Opinion Was Filed for Appeal

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION NC-COA APPEAL RULING DISADVANTAGES THE APPELLANT TO N.C.

SUPREME COURT REVIEW OF THE NC-COA RULING.............................................................

WHY THE NC-COA SHOULD ALLOW EN BANC RE-HEARING

BACKGROUND/HISTORY ON THE WAKE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT AND NC-COA CASE. 5

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

NC-COA AND OPINIONS AND MANDATES ARE REQUIRED BY N.C. APP. R. 32

ARGUMENTS TO THE NC-COA’S CONDUCT FOR THESE ORDERS....................

JUDGE PANEL DID NOT PROVIDE THE PROPER RULING OR PROCEDURALLY TO FILE AN

OPINION

DENY APPELLEES ANY COSTS AND LAWYER FEES AND PURPORTED SANCTIONS FOR

HAVING TO AND TO REPLY TO THIS MOTION OR APPEAL......................................................... 7

IN SUMMARY THIS AS AN AMENDED NC-COA EN BANC RE-HEARING MOTION REQUIRES

THE NC-COA’S OPINION.................................................................................................................... 8

17 of 39

Appendix A-NCCOA-Exhibit 5 Amended Appellant's

Motion En Banc Rehearing - Februry 27, 2023

Appellant/Caveator2, Kathy R. Allen, who is having to proceed pro se is filing this as an

amended N.C.G.S. 31.1(d) en banc motion for rehearing . On February 23, 2023 the Appellant

filed a motion Doc. #39 to maintain the 15 days to filing it. After viewing the N.C. App. rules for

it the more appropriate filing would be to file the motion as ‘an as complete’ as possible and

motion later to amend this en banc hearing motion by the appropriate N.C. App. R. 14-16

(N.C.G.S. 7A-30 to N.C.G.S. 32) after the February 23, 2023 motion is ruled or denied as the

final en banc motion.

The Appellant is also in a ‘time-crunch’ for her own personal schedule to properly cite

cases for this ‘amended en-banc re-hearing’ motion and does not waiver to a 2nd amendment of it

to t timeline for ruling on it. But it provides f or the questions for an opinion not filed with the

dismissal and the Orders Doc. #40 for it, and should be rescinded on that alone to the dismissal

to provide an opinion to allow the Appellate to properly provide a response to the dismissal as a

N.C.G.S. 7A-27 to N.C.G.S. 30-32 response—not providing the opinion or not doing so by this

motion disadvantages the Appellant for her relief and post-appeal.

INTRODUCTION NC-COA APPEAL RULING DISADVANTAGES THE APPELLANT TO

N.C. SUPREME COURT REVIEW OF THE NC-COA RULING

Appeals are difficult enough without complicating them with a court’s non-adherence to

the procedurals for its ruling. That being so it is clear the NC-COA Orders filed February 7, 2023

(Doc.#18) and February 23, 2023 (Doc #39) violated the Appellant’s substantial rights and due

process to the appeal case for a review of the appeal by the N.C. Supreme Court rules. This appeal

was filed April 1, 2022 and progressed with filings and to the Order (February 7, 2023 Doc.#18)

granting the Appellees Doc. #18 motion to dismiss (MTD). But it is clear that Order disadvantages

the Appellant and has been so throughout the filings for the appeal.

18 of 39

Appendix A-NCCOA-Exhibit 5 Amended Appellant's

Motion En Banc Rehearing - Februry 27, 2023

THE DISPOSITION OF THE APPELLANT’S R. 33 AN R. 38 MOTIONS FILED IN NC-COA

FOR THE APPEAL ARE QUESTIONABLE

There were approx.. 49 documents filed in this appeal including the notice of appeal and

Appellant’s notice of representation. Of those 33 were the Appellant’s. Of the Appellant’s all

except motions for extensions were ‘denied’ by the NC-COA (being signed as ‘Eugene

Soares—Clerk of the court’ instead of with the judge-panel Judges Chris Dillon, Tobias

Hampson, and Jefferson Griffin signatures of sort by them or a judge’s signature indicating it had

been view properly (which clearly they did not cite anything to the Appellant’s December 9,

2022 brief or November 23, 2022 Doc, #33 reply to the Appellees’ (MTD) Doc. #18 or the

Appellees’ brief Doc.#19—which has no Order of its own.

Those supplement and other non-extension motions were filed to notify the NC-COA of and

to supplement the record that the N.C. App. R. 33 notice of representation was required for

Defendantl (the Appellant’s oldest brother who the Appellant was told passed in late 2020) -and

no notice of representation had not been filed by his own estate, his tribunal court attorney

(Appellee3) or any such estate for Appelleel. As the record of appeal filings indicate ‘each was

denied’. Indeed a ‘necessary party’ should be represented and without doing so Defendantl

should rightfully ‘lose by default’ with judgment for the Appellant. So are the other motions

filed requesting the N.C. App. R. 38 for the same Appellantl and for a substitution for him—but

all of those were denied—seemingly just robo-signing of the Orders denying the motion with no

analysis, Federal Civil Rules of Procedures (FCRP) Rule 52 findings of fact or similar

included—Rightfully the MTD should entertain this and award the Appellant not just ignore as it

does Appellees 1 was unrepresented.

THE NC-COA ORDERS FOR DISPOSITION OF THIS APPEAL ARE QUESTIONABLE BY

N.C. APP. 32 AND OTHER PERTINENT N.C. APP. RULES FOR ORDERS, MANDATES

AN OPINIONS

19 of 39

Appendix A-NCCOA-Exhibit 5 Amended Appellant's

Motion En Banc Rehearing - Februry 27, 2023

As supra the February 7, 2023 Order (Doc.#18) also did not include any analysis just

indicating the Appellees’ motion to dismiss was granted. This prompted the Appellant to file

the motion for an extension (Doc. #39) to file the Rule 31.1 (d) en banc rehearing motion to

request of when an opinion (published or unpublished) it would be filed and would then file the

R. 31.1(d) motion. NC-COA then sent the February 23, 2023 (Doc. #39) Order that no opinion

would be filed—thus to toll the en banc hearing’ due date. But this complicates bot procedurally

(if it is correct) and whether to file this motion as an ‘ amended en banc rehearing'1 motion of the

February 23, 2023 motion or allow NC-COA to rule on it and reserve to amend it as a violation

of the rules for N.C. App. R. 32 or similar opinions and mandates. After a notice of appeal of

NC-COA’s February 23,2023 Order is on review in the N.C. Supreme Court and by that allowed

due date.

That being so this ‘amended en banc rehearing’’ is being filed.

WHY THE NC-COA SHOULD ALLOW EN BANC RE-HEARING

The NC-COA should allow an en banc rehearing because it is clear:

(1) NC-COA has not provided the proper attention to the appeal requirements for

necessary parties to be represented,

(2) The NC-COA did not provide an opinion for their February 7, 2023 and February 21,

2023 Orders ruling,

(3) The Appellees did not provide a sufficient MTD to dismiss the appeal, and

(4) The case is for an estate matter for a Caveat filed for the Appellant’s mother’s estate

and on appeal because the Wake Superior County Court ruling for it did not provide

the proper ruling for N.C.G.S. 31-37 et. seq., the proper proceedings for estate and

‘Will’ administration and violated at least N.C.G.S. 28A for both an in doing so

caused the Appellant between $15m000 to a foreclosure on the homestead property,

and

(5)The rulings in both courts have denied to the Appellant’s rights as an ‘heir’ to her

mother’s estate to be determined

JUDGE PANELS’ NON-OPININON AND NON-ANAUYLSIS PROCEDURALLY FAILS

Court mandates with opinions by N.C. App. Rule 32 are required to be sent to the

tribunal court within 20 days of the order. By that alone the MTD Orders fails and should be

rescinded to provide it. By that same rule opinions are due.

20 of 39

Appendix A-NCCOA-Exhibit 5 Amended Appellant's

Motion En Banc Rehearing - Februry 27, 2023

BACKGROUND/HISTORY ON THE WAKE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT AND NC-COA

CASE

10.

Appellant file the Caveat2 in Wake County Superior Court February 13, 2020. After

Coronavirus delays an align the parties motion was filed an calendared for November 16, 2021.

Judge Rozier dismissed the Caveat2 on Order November 18, 2021 (R. p. xxx) on the

Defendants’ MTD (at hearing) suggesting the statute of limitations (SOL) was up when the

Appellant file the N.C.G.S. 31-37 Caveat. But a through review of the filings and court record

will indicate that is not correct—and if it were there are questionable compliance with the

N.C.G.S. 28A an 29 for estates and ‘Will’s—thus violating the Appellant’s relief by it and by

N.C.G.S. §1-52 and § 1-15 for statute of limitations (R. xxx).

11.

At the same time it is the Appellees including Appellee3 (Appellant’s brother’s attorney)

whom the Appellant sued in 2018 for his conduct or lack thereof for the estate matters—and his

failures to admit his wrong—thus he continued into this appeal without a word or effort to

correct it or his own conduct)—and a ruling on the merits was and has been denied in this

Caveat2 and denies the Appellant a substantial right and due process to have the estate matter an

‘Will’ determined and provided to the Appellant as an heir to and of her mother’s estate.

12.

The Appellant filed her R. pp.1-176 ) on July 25, 2022) and the successive filings

followed in the NC-COA—thus we know the Wake County Superior Court Orders fail to both

declaratory, equitable or N.C.G.S. 28A/29 relief to have granted the Appellees’ MTD without a

Rule 52 findings of fact for it. This en banc rehearing motion followed and was filed February

23, 2023 and ’amended’ by this motion on February 27, 2023 (see NC-COA docket sheet for all

the filings) https://appellate.nccourts.org/dockets.php?court=2&docket=2-2022-0276001&pdf=l&a=:0&dev=l”.

21 of 39

Appendix A-NCCOA-Exhibit 5 Amended Appellant's

Motion En Banc Rehearing - Februry 27, 2023

13.

Indeed how can any ruling be a matter of success on their merits or by Rule 12(b)(6)

dismissal when the evidence is not heard. (R. pp. )

14.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

The NC-COA and these Orders have turned the appeal from the Defendants’ conduct into

a question of their conduct. Being so those facts are to non-compliance with N.C. App. R. 32

for opinions and analyses for appeal dismissals. It Iso is conduct for see U.S. Code 1983

violations, which the Appellant does not waive by this filing for relief.

15.

NC-COA AND OPINIONS AND MANDATES ARE REQUIRED BY N.C. APP. R. 32

Absent the NC-COA’s opinion or analysis the Appellant is denied relief to provide a

proper en banc rehearing motion—and forced to discuss the NC-COA’s judge-panel’s conduct

instead of the Defendants whose conduct require t filing of the Caveat in the tribunal court—that

alone requires rescinding the Order. But more than that if the NC-COA is suggesting the MTD

(Doc#14) does not require an opinion because it is not a dismissal using the Appellees’ brief

(Doc. #15)—that also fails, because that corrective action would be to rule on the Appellees’

brief—then file the judge-panel’s opinion—but dismissal by N.C. Ap.. R. 32 the MTD with no

opinion still fails and so does doing for by the brief, e.g. if the Appellees had not also filed a

brief—and is now the NC-COA’s procedural by N.C. App. R. 32 violations.

16.

It is clear by the February 7, 2023 and February 23, 2023 Orders ignored the Appellant’s

brief (Doc#14) and replies (.Doc.#33) to the Appellees’ MTD and brief (Doc.#28)

17.

ARGUMENTS TO THE NC-COA’S CONDUCT FOR THESE ORDERS

Judges and this judge panel should follow the N.C. App. Rules and failed to do so.

JUDGE PANEL DID NOT PROVIDE THE PROPER RULING OR PROCEDURALLY TO

FILE AN OPINION

18.

When considering the MTD the judge panel and judge-panel Judges Chris Dillon, Tobias

Hampson, and Jefferson Griffin should have included an analysis that included the Appellant’s

22 of 39

Appendix A-NCCOA-Exhibit 5 Amended Appellant's

Motion En Banc Rehearing - Februry 27, 2023

brief and rely in an analysis-format and discussion to the Order and in it why the February 7, 2023

Order imposed costs and how these were determined—and should be provided.

JUDGE PANEL IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE APELLANT AND TO PRO SE APPELLANTS

19.

Whether the Appellant is pro se are not should not have affected the judge panel to not file

an opinion (published or unpublished)—thus ignoring a substantial right and due process for

appeals by among other N.C. App. Rules to U.S. Code 1983.

NC-COA JUDGE PANEL AND WAKE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT BOTH ERROREDAN

IS A PUBLIC CONFLICT AND OF CONCERN FOR ESTATE ADMINISTRATION

20.

Considering the appeal was for n state an heir matter contesting a ‘Will’ is ultimately a

concern for the public and as denying proper estate administration and erred to have done or

allowed any of the above in ^[18-20. If there is a dismissal should ensure both declaratory and/or

injunctive relief for the Appellant as an heir of the estate matter.—but did not. Being so it is an

abuse of power and an abuse of discretion f or e NC-COA judge-panel Judges Chris Dillon, Tobias

Hampson, and Jefferson Griffin to not provide opportunity for requesting and providing at least a

N.C. App. Rule 30(e)4) opinion.

DENY APPELLEES ANY COSTS AND LAWYER FEES AND PURPORTED SANCTIONS

FOR HAVING TO AND TO REPLY TO THIS MOTION OR APPEAL

21.

It is clear Appellees misrepresented the status of this case to the Appellant’s mother’s

‘Will’ and the Appellant’s efforts to get this case on-track, for estate administration. Appellees

had several opportunities to correct their wrong but continued their misrepresentations.

Appellees also ‘without a word’ to correct the deficiency of the requirement for opinions they

continued their wonton conduct to not allow due process for this appeal. Appellees must be held

accountable, and this case and appeal view for its merits and be denied any costs for this appeal,

because it is their conduct not the Appellant’s that cause the filing of the case in Wake County

Superior Court and this appeal.

23 of 39

Appendix A-NCCOA-Exhibit 5 Amended Appellant's

Motion En Banc Rehearing - Februry 27, 2023

IN SUMMARY THIS AS AN AMENDED NC-COA EN BANC RE-HEARING MOTION

REQUIRES THE NC-COA’S OPINION

22.

The Appellant files this as an amended en banc rehearing motion requesting the analysis

and opinion so the en banc rehearing motion can be properly argued and reserves to amend it

when it is received by App. R. 32 . That being so without an opinion how is the Appellant to

provide the en banc rehearing arguments to discuss it until it is filed—and this e en banc

rehearing motion would be timely by it.

Respectfully submitted this the 27th day of February, 2023.

s/ Kathy R. Allen {Pro Se)

Home address:

26 55th Street NE

Washington, DC 20019-6760

E-mail address:

allenkl 101@comcast.net

Telephone No: (202) 399-6225

Alternate Certificate of service address:

2526 Poole Road Raleigh, NC 27610-2820

24 of 39

Appendix A-Exhibit 5A-Appellant's

Motion to Transfer NCCOA Record to NCSC - May 9, 2023

10th DISTRICT

NORTH CAROLINA APPELLATE COURT

No. COA22-276

Appellant/Caveator2 Kathy R. Allen

Appellees Respondent 1 :Propounder 1

Arthur L. Allen (Deceased)

Respondent 2: Propounder 2 [sic] Steve R. Allen

Respondent 3: Propounder 3 Anthony A. Klish

Arthur L. Allen et. al.[sic]

From: Wake County Case: #16-E-1390

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF:

REBECCA BOWDEN ALLEN JOHNSON

Deceased Case #16-E-001390 (caveat for estate)

(additional Wake County filings pending #18-CVS-013119,

special hearings and estate filings #18 SP1746 (foreclosure),

#17-SP-1397 (petition for administrator)),

Petition #17SP000769 File No.

From 06-E-1397 (this ‘E’ number was provided

with Petition and might be incorrect)’

APPELLANT’S MOTION TO REQUEST NC-COA TRANSMIT THE RECORD FOR

CASE #22-276 TO THE NC-SUPREME COURT (NCSC) FOR CASE #84P23

WHY THIS MOTION

Appellant/Caveator2, Kathy R. Allen, who is having to proceed pro se is filing this as N.C.

App. Rule 37 motion or a more pertinent rule to request that the NC-COA transfer the record for

case #22-276 to the NC-Supreme Court for case #84P23. On March 17, 2023 the Appellant filed

the notice of appeal for NCSC case #84P23 and also a petition for discretionary review by N.C.G.S.

§ 7A-30 and § 7A-31 by N.C. App. 14 (b)(2), and R. 15(b), respectively or as a more appropriate

statute for the NC-COA Orders filed February 7, 2023 (Doc.#18) and February 23, 2023 that

granted the Appellees Doc.#18 motion to dismiss (MTD) and NC-COA’s successive March 3,

2023 Orders.

25 of 39

Appendix A-Exhibit 5A-Appellant's

Motion to Transfer NCCOA Record to NCSC - May 9, 2023

See N. C. App. Rule 14 (2)

..Transmission; Docketing; Copies. Upon the filing of a notice

of appeal, the clerk of the Court of Appeals will forthwith transmit the original record on appeal

to the clerk of the Supreme Court, who shall thereupon file the record and docket the appeal....”

The NC-COA was to transfer the record to NC-SC within 20 days of the NCSC notice of

appeal and o o/a April 5, 2023. As of this filing it has not been transmitted. The rules do not

indicate that the Appellant should file it, but should be NC-COA who does. So the Appellant is

being proactive by this motion and requests NC-COA to do so.

DENY APPELLEES ANY COSTS AND LAWYER FEES AND PURPORTED SANCTIONS

FOR HAVING TO AND TO REPLY TO THIS MOTION OR APPEAL

It is clear Appellees misrepresented the status of this case to the Appellant’s mother’s

‘Will’ and the Appellant’s efforts to get this case on-track, for estate administration. Appellees

had several opportunities to correct their wrong but continued their misrepresentations.

Appellees also ‘without a word’ to correct the deficiency of the requirement for the record they

continued their wonton conduct to not allow due process for this appeal. Appellees must be held

accountable, and this case and appeal view for its merits and be denied any costs for this motion

or appeal, because it is their conduct not the Appellant’s that cause the filing of the case in Wake

County Superior Court and the #22-276 appeal.

CONSENT FOR THIS MOTION

Usually parties are required to request consent for motions filed. Being that this is a

record the NC-COA (not the Appellant) should provide the Appellant did not request it as a

necessary consent of the other parties to file this motion. That being so the Appellant asks that

this court immediately transmit the case #22-276 record to the NCSC as supra or indicate when

it will be transmitted so among other things N.C. App. Rule 28 brief and extensions for them or

the Appellant’s other timelines can be timely in use and citation of the record.

26 of 39

Appendix A-Exhibit 5A-Appellant's

Motion to Transfer NCCOA Record to NCSC - May 9, 2023

Respectfully submitted this the 9th day of May, 2023.

s/ Kathy R. Allen {Pro Se)

Home address:

26 55th Street NE

Washington, DC 20019-6760

E-mail address:

allenkl 101@comcast.net

Telephone No: (202) 399-6225

Alternate Certificate of service address:

2526 Poole Road Raleigh, NC 27610-2820

27 of 39

Appendix A-NCCOA-Exhibit 6-Appellant's Motion

Rule 38 Subsitution - August 22, 2022

10th DISTRICT

NORTH CAROLINA APPELLATECOURT

No. COA22-276

Appellant/Caveator2 Kathy R. Allen

Appellees Respondent 1 :Propounder 1

Arthur L. Allen (Deceased)

Respondent 2: Propounder 2 [sic] Steve R. Allen

Respondent 3: Propounder 3 Anthony A. Klish

Arthur L. Allen et. al.[sic]

)

From: Wake County Case: #16-E-1390

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF:

REBECCA BOWDEN ALLEN

JOHNSON Deceased Case #16-E-001390

estate) (additional Wake

(caveat for

County filings pending # 18-CVS-013119,

special hearings and estate filings #18

SP1746 (foreclosure), #17-SP-1397

(petition for administrator)), Petition

#17SP000769 File No. From 06-E1397 (this ‘E’ number was provided with

Petition and might be incorrect)’

APPELLANT’S fUNCONSENTEDl MOTION FOR A RULE 38 SUBSTITUTION - A

NECESSARY PARTY

Why this motion for a necessary R. 38 party substitution

Appellant/Caveator2, Kathy R. Allen, who continues to be pro se provides this

separate motion for a R. 38 substitution in response to the 08-19-2022, 2022 Order Doc. #17

denying her opposition to C. Godwin (Appellees’ attorney) withdrawal as attorney for

Appellee 1 (Arthur L. Allen). That opposition was in the motions filed between 06-07-2022

to 06-09-2022 Doc. #11 and Doc. #16 and in Doc. #17 her response opposition to the

attorney withdrawal by Order Doc. #16 on 06-05-2022. This motion is not duplicative of

any of those or of other motions discussing the 06-06-2022 attorney withdrawal or the Order

08-19-2022 Doc. #21 for it or in the discussions on the R. 38 and Rule 19 substitution for a

necessary party (and an attorney) as such this is a separate motion for it. Seemingly the

Order is signed by the clerk of the court (Ed Soares) not a judge and denying a substantial

right by not providing a R. 38 or R. 19 substitution is a function of a judge, so maybe the

clerk (Soares) is just denying the motion to the title of it instead it is prejudicial to the

28 of 39

Appendix A-NCCOA-Exhibit 6-Appellant's Motion

Rule 38 Subsitution - August 22, 2022

Appellant to not have the proper party represented—thus this motion is required for the

separate request for it.

On 08-17-2022 because the Appellees had not filed their 07-18-2022 response to the

opposition for attorney withdrawal and there were due dates for other filings for the case the

Appellant filed the 08-17-2022 motion for this court to view that motion and was ‘Motion

for an Order - 2nd Motion to Supplement the Record Doc. #17 and so this court would rule

in time for the due dates for the other filings for this case.

Appellees then filed a motion to dismiss on 08-15-2022

Appellees when they received that motion on 08-17-2022 (immediately filed

additional responses Doc. #18, 19, 20 —now that was also their having missed their 07-182022 due date for a response to the Appellants Doc. #11 and Docs. #16, 17 oppositions for

the attorney (C. Jordan Godwin) withdrawal and the 06-05-2022 Order for it. Being so the

Appellees filed those and as a response to her 2nd Motion to supplement the record thus this

allowed the Appellees opportunity to respond twice), because they should have provided a

response to Doc. #16 by 07-18-2022 or filed themselves an extension to file it late and being

so their late response should be denied not have it intermingled with the Appellant’s #Doc. 16

and her Doc. #17 filed on 08-17-2022 motion—which was just to be a reminder to the court

the motion was pending to maintain due dates for the Appellant’s responses to other filings.

If the court is allowing the Appellees’ this 07-28-2022 late and as a response to that

the Appellant’s 08-17-2022 motion Doc. #21 Appellees should motion to extend the time

for it as supra and if R. 37 does not allow the Appellant a 10-day response to their Doc. #20

filed 08-15-2022 Appellant requires an extension as infra to reply to their MTD (which is

being also motioned separately today—but again a MTD is premature not allowed by the

29 of 39

Appendix A-NCCOA-Exhibit 6-Appellant's Motion

Rule 38 Subsitution - August 22, 2022

rules or to N.C. App. R. 25, and its rebuttal should be by allowing the Appellant’s response

due o/a 08-25-2022 to the MTD. That being so the Appellant R. 37 responses for Doc. #11,

#16,17 (for that Order), and #18 (MTD) are allowed within 10 days.

As above the most recent and pending Appellant response would be to the Appellees

08-15-2022 Doc. #20 response (which its argument is clearly illogical) and the Appellant

should be by R. 37 allowed and plans to file within 10 days the response and as such their

argument should be denied). But being so as supra on 08-15-2022 the Appellees also filed

Doc. #19 motion to dismissal appeal (MTD)—requiring the extension to reply—thus heir

brief also has a du date of not until 09-28-2022—which would also allow the Appellant time

to response to the MTD—or this court should deny their MTD as moot by the briefing

schedule.

If the Appellant’s response to their Doc. #20 is not allowed by the R. 37 or a more

pertinent rule for responses their MTD still requires the Appellant to file at least a 30-day

extension to allow time to respond as sura to be filed separately for that extension.

This motion instead of the opposition to the withdrawal as supra specifically requests

the Appellees provide the R. 38 substitution and an attorney for Appellee 1 as supra—who

seemingly would be Appelleel’s estate and/or Appellee3 (the attorney in the Superior Court

case) to correct this by R. 38 or R. 19 and to do so within 14 to 30 days.

On 08-22-2022 approx. 1:30pm EST the Appellant sent the Appellees an E-mail

requesting consent and their reply for this motion by 4:00pm EST, indicating if they did not

receive the E-mail or reply in time it would be filed ‘Unconsented’. With or without their

consent the Appellant thinks this motion should be granted to provide the required R. 38 and

R. 19 substitution properly—without doing so affect a substantial right and is prejudicial to

30 of 39

Appendix A-NCCOA-Exhibit 6-Appellant's Motion

Rule 38 Subsitution - August 22, 2022

the case and appropriate remedy, which is Fed. R. 59 and/or R. 60 for such denial—but the

Appellant believes providing the R. 38 substitution will correct the record (both for the Wake

Superior Court case and the appeal) and save everyone time.

Respectfully submitted this the 22nd day of August, 2022.

s/ Kathy R. Allen (Pro Se)

Home address:

26 55th Street NE

Washington, DC 20019-6760

E-mail address:

allenkl 101@comcast.net

Telephone No: (202) 399-6225

Alternate Certificate of service address:

2526 Poole Road Raleigh, NC 27610-2820

10th DISTRICT

NORTH CAROLINA APPELLATE COURT

No. COA22-276

Appellant/Caveator2 Kathy R. Allen

Respondent 1 :Propounder 1

Appellees Respondent 1 :Propounder 1

Arthur L. Allen (Deceased)

Respondent 2: Propounder 2 [sic] Steve R. Allen

Respondent 3: Propounder 3 Anthony A. Klish

Arthur L. Allen et. al.[sic]

)

From: Wake County Case: #16-E-1390

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE

OF: REBECCA BOWDEN ALLEN

JOHNSON Deceased Case #16-E001390 (caveat for estate) (additional

Wake County filings pending #18-CVS013119, special hearings and estate

filings #18 SP1746 (foreclosure), #17SP-1397 (petition for administrator)),

Petition #17SP000769 File No. From 06E-1397 (this ‘E’ number was provided

with Petition and might be incorrect)’

Certificate Of Service

I hereby certify that on 08-22-2022 a copy of this APPELLANT’S fUNCONSENTEDl MOTION

FOR A RULE 38 SUBSTITUTION - A NECESSARY PARTY to the N.C. App. Ct. for

Superior Ct Estates Division Case #16-E-001390 (caveat for estate) (additional filing pending #18CVS-013119, special hearings and estate filings #18 SP1746 (foreclosure), #17-SP-1397 (petition

for administrator)) to: ‘PETITION CAVEAT IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF:

REBECCA BOWDEN ALLEN JOHNSON Deceased for Petition #17SP000769 File No. From

06-E-1397 (this ‘E’ number was provided with Petition and might be incorrect)’ was sent to

Propounders/Appellees and/or their attorney in the following manner.

31 of 39

Appendix A-NCCOA-Exhibit 6-Appellant's Motion

Rule 38 Subsitution - August 22, 2022

By regular mail, eFiling and/or E-mail a copy to:

Respondent 1/2/Propounder 1/2 and Propounder/Respondent3:

Propounder 1/Propounder 2

Arthur L. Allen (deceased)/ Steve R. Allen Deliver to attorney: Anthony A. Klish Anthony A.

Klish 7706 Six Forks Road Suite 101 Raleigh. NC 27615 Office: (919) 526-0450/Fax (919) 9928763 Anthony@maginnishoward.com

Propounder 2: Steve R. Allen 778 Duffield Drive NW Atlanta, GA 30318

Propounder 3: Anthony A. Klish 7706 Six Forks Road Suite 101 Raleigh. NC 27615

Caveator 1: Jay K. Allen: 2526 Poole Road Raleigh, NC 27610-2820

Caveator 2: Kathy R. Allen: 26 55th Street NE, Washington, DC 20019-6760

Appellees and Appellees’ Attorney

Arthur L. Allen (deceased)/ Steve R. Allen Deliver to attorney, Anthony A. Klish

Anthony A. Klish for Anthony A. Klish 7706 Six Forks Road Suite 101 Raleigh. NC

27615 Office: (919) 526-0450/Fax 919) 992-8763 Anthony@maginnishoward.com

Collectively “Respondents/Appellees ”

C. Jordan Godwin

N.C. State Bar.: 56316

E:jordan@brittonlawfirm.com

2850 Village Dr. Ste. 206 (Fayetteville, NC. 28304

T:910-339-6603|F: 910-339-6606

Counselfor Appellees Steve R. Allen & Anthony Klish [sic Arthur L. Allen]

Date: 08-22-2022

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Kathy R. Allen (Pro Se)

Home: address: 26 55* Street NE

Washington, DC 20019-6760

E-mail address: allenkll01@comcast.net

Telephone No: (202) 399-6225

Alternate Certificate of service address:

2526 Poole Road

Raleigh, NC 27610-2820

32 of 39

mottf) Carolina

Court of Appeals

EUGENE H. SOAR, Clerk

Fax: (919) 831-3615

Web: https://www.nccourts.gov

No. 22-276

Court of Appeals Building

One West Morgan Street

Raleigh, NC 27601

(919) 831-3600

From Wake

( 16E1390 )

Mailing Address:

P. O. Box 2779

Raleigh, NC 27602

Appendix A-NCCOA-Exhibit 6A - Order Denied Appellant's Opposition and

Supplement Record to Attorney Withdrawal and Rule 38 - July 5, 2022

KATHY ALLEN,

Caveator,

ARTHUR ALLEN, STEVE R. ALLEN,

and ANTHONY A. KLISH

Propounders.

ORDER

The following order was entered:

The motion filed in this cause on the 1st of July 2022 and designated 'Appellant's Motion to

supplement Record on C. Jordan Godwin Withdrawal as Attorney for Attorney for Arthur L. Allen (Appelleel)

and Require the N.C. APP. R. 38 Substitution' is decided as follows: The attached supplement shall be

considered with Appellant's 7 June 2022 motion designated "Appellant's Opposition to Appellees' Attorney

Godwin 06-03-2022 to Withdraw as Attorney for Aurther L. Allen (Appelleel)", which this Court originally

entered as a response. Appellees' response(s) to Appellant's 7 June 2022 motion, if any, shall be filed on or

before 18 July 2022.

By order of the Court this the 5th of July 2022.

WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 5th day of July 2022.

—•—

Eugene H. Soar

Clerk, North Carolina Court of Appeals

Copy to:

Ms. Kathy Allen, For Allen, Kathy

Mr. Anthony A. Klish, Attorney at Law, For Klish, Anthony A., et al

Mr. C. Jordan Godwin, Attorney at Law, For Allen, Steve R.

Hon. Frank Blair Williams, Clerk of Superior Court

33 of 39

IHIli

i^ortf) Carolina

Court of appeals!

EUGENE H. SOAR, Clerk

Fax: (919) 831-3615

Web: https://www.nccourts.gov

Court of Appeals Building

One West Morgan Street

Raleigh, NC 27601

(919) 831-3600

From Wake

( 16E1390 )

Mailing Address:

P. O. Box 2779

Raleigh, NC 27602

Appendix A-NCCOA-Exhibit 6B - Order

Denied Appellant's Rule 38 - August 19, 2022

No. 22-276

KATHY ALLEN,

Caveator,

ARTHUR ALLEN, STEVE R. ALLEN,

and ANTHONY A. KLISH

Propounders.

ORDER

The following order was entered:

The motion filed in this cause on the 17th of August 2022 and designated 'Appellant's Second Motion

to Supplement the Record and for an Order for Motions Filed Between 6-7-2022 to 6-9-2022 and for R.38

Substitution' is denied.

By order of the Court this the 19th of August 2022.

WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 19th day of August 2022.

Eugene H. Soar

Clerk, North Carolina Court of Appeals

Copy to:

Ms. Kathy R. Allen, For Allen, Kathy

Mr. AnthonyA. Klish, Attorney at Law, For Klish, Anthony A., et al

Mr. C. Jordan Godwin, Attorney at Law, For Allen, Steve R.

Ms. Mary Flagler Allen

Hon. Frank Blair Williams, Clerk of Superior Court

34 of 39

- •.

•?

jTiortli Carolina

Court of Sopeals

EUGENE H. SOAR, Clerk

Fax: (919) 831-3615

Web: https://www.nccourts.gov

Court of Appeals Building

One West Morgan Street

Raleigh, NC 27601

(919) 831-3600

From Wake

( 16E1390 )

Mailing Address:

P. O. Box 2779

Raleigh, NC 27602

Appendix A-NCCOA-Exhibit 6C - Order Granting

Appellees' MTD Doc. #18 - February 7, 2023

No. 22-276

KATHY ALLEN,

Caveator,

ARTHUR ALLEN, STEVE R. ALLEN,

and ANTHONY A. KLISH

Propounders.

ORDER

The following order was entered:

The motion filed in this cause on the 15th of August 2022 and designated 'Motion to Dismiss Appeal'

is allowed. Appeal dismissed. Appellant to pay costs.

And it is considered and adjudged further, that the Appellant, Kathy Allen, do pay the costs of the

appeal in this Court incurred, to wit, the sum of Eighty Seven Dollars and 75/100 ($87.75), and execution

issue therefor.

By order of the Court this the 7th of February 2023.

WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 7th day of February 2023.

Eugene H. Soar

Clerk, North Carolina Court of Appeals

Copy to:

Ms. Kathy R. Allen, For Allen, Kathy - (By Email)

Mr. Anthony A. Klish, Attorney at Law, For Klish, Anthony A., et al - (By Email)

Mr. C. Jordan Godwin, Attorney at Law, For Allen, Steve R. - (By Email)

Ms. Mary Flagler Allen

Hon. Frank Blair Williams, Clerk of Superior Court

35 of 39

Jlorth Carolina

Court of appeals

EUGENE H. SOAR, Clerk

Fax: (919) 831-3615

Web: https://www.nccourts.gov

No. 22-276

Court of Appeals Building

One West Morgan Street

Raleigh, NC 27601

(919) 831-3600

From Wake

( 16E1390 )

Mailing Address:

P. O. Box 2779

Raleigh, NC 27602

Appendix A-NCCOA-Exhibit 6D - Order Denying Appellant’s

En Banc Motion for Extension Doc. #39 - February 23, 2023

KATHY ALLEN,

Caveator,

ARTHUR ALLEN, STEVE R. ALLEN,

and ANTHONY A. KLISH

Propounders.

ORDER

The following order was entered:

The motion filed in this cause on the 21st of February 2023 and designated 'Appellant's Motion to

Extension to File En Banc Rehearing Motion to the February 7, 2023 Order Granting Defendant-Appellees'

August 15, 2022 Motion to Dismiss (MTD)' is denied. This Court dismissed the appeal by order entered 7

February 2023. As a result of this dismissal, no opinion will be filed.

By order of the Court this the 23rd of February 2023.

WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 23rd day of February 2023.

Eugene H. Soar

Clerk, North Carolina Court of Appeals

Copy to:

Ms. Kathy R. Allen, For Allen, Kathy - (By Email)

Mr. Anthony A. Klish, Attorney at Law, For Klish, Anthony A., et al - (By Email)

Mr. C. Jordan Godwin, Attorney at Law, For Allen, Steve R. - (By Email)

Ms. Mary Flagler Allen

Flon. Frank Blair Williams, Clerk of Superior Court

36 of 39

JBtortf) Carolina

Court of Appeals:

EUGENE H. SOAR, Clerk

Fax: (919) 831-3615

Web: https://www.nccourts.gov

Court of Appeals Building

One West Morgan Street

Raleigh, NC 27601

(919) 831-3600

From Wake

( 16E1390 )

Mailing Address:

P. O. Box 2779

Raleigh, NC 27602

Appendix A-NCCOA-Exhibit 6E - Order Denying

Appellant's En Banc Rehearing Motion Doc. #40 - March 3, 2023

No. 22-276

KATHY ALLEN,

Caveator,

ARTHUR ALLEN, STEVE R. ALLEN,

and ANTHONY A. KLISH

Propounders.

ORDER

The following order was entered:

The motion filed in this cause on 23 February 2023 and designated "Motion for En Banc Rehearing"

is dismissed.

By order of the Court this the 3rd of March 2023.

WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 3rd day of March 2023.

L 3"

Eugene H. Soar

Clerk, North Carolina Court of Appeals

Copy to:

Ms. Kathy R. Allen, For Allen, Kathy - (By Email)

Mr. Anthony A. Klish, Attorney at Law, For Klish, Anthony A., et al - (By Email)

Mr. C. Jordan Godwin, Attorney at Law, For Allen, Steve R. - (By Email)

Ms. Mary Flagler Allen

Hon. Frank Blair Williams, Clerk of Superior Court

37 of 39

iBorth Carolina

Court of appeals

EUGENE H. SOAR, Clerk

Fax: (919) 831-3615

Web: https://www.nccourts.gov

No. 22-276

Court of Appeals Building

One West Morgan Street

Raleigh, NC 27601

(919) 831-3600

From Wake

( 16E1390 )

Mailing Address:

P. 0. Box 2779

Raleigh, NC 27602

Appendix A-NCCOA-Exhibit 6F - Order Denying

Appellant’s Amended En Banc Rehearing Motion Doc. #41 - March 3, 2023

KATHY ALLEN,

Caveator,

ARTHUR ALLEN, STEVE R. ALLEN,

and ANTHONY A. KLISH

Propounders.

ORDER

The following order was entered:

The motion filed in this cause on the 27th of February 2023 and designated 'Amended Motion for En

Banc Rehearing' is dismissed.

By order of the Court this the 3rd of March 2023.

WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 3rd day of March 2023.

Eugene H. Soar

Clerk, North Carolina Court of Appeals

Copy to:

Ms. Kathy R. Allen, For Allen, Kathy - (By Email)

Mr. Anthony A. Klish, Attorney at Law, For Klish, Anthony A., et al - (By Email)

Mr. C. Jordan Godwin, Attorney at Law, For Allen, Steve R. - (By Email)

Ms. Mary Flagler Allen

Hon. Frank Blair Williams, Clerk of Superior Court

38 of 39

if,'7:

iSoctf) Carolina

Court of Appeals;

EUGENE H. SOAR, Clerk

Fax: (919) 831-3615

Web: https://www.nccourts.gov

Court of Appeals Building

One West Morgan Street

Raleigh, NC 27601

(919) 831-3600

From Wake

( 16E1390 )

■i

Mailing Address:

P. O. Box 2779

Raleigh, NC 27602

Appendix A-NCCOA-Exhibit 6G - Order Denying

Appellant's Motion to Stay Mandate Doc. #42 - March 3, 2023

No. 22-276

KATHY ALLEN,

Caveator,

ARTHUR ALLEN, STEVE R. ALLEN,

and ANTHONY A. KLISH

Propounders.

■i

ORDER

The following order was entered:

■A

The motion filed in this cause on the 27th of February 2023 and designated ’Motion to Stay Mandate1

is dismissed.

■$

By order of the Court this the 3rd of March 2023.

ft.

WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 3rd day of March 2023.

;;

Eugene H. Soar

Clerk, North Carolina Court of Appeals

• i;

;

Copy to:

Ms. Kathy R. Allen, For Allen, Kathy - (By Email)

Mr. Anthony A. Klish, Attorney at Law, For Klish, Anthony A., et al - (By Email)

Mr. C. Jordan Godwin, Attorney at Law, For Allen, Steve R. - (By Email)

Ms. Mary Flagler Allen

Hon. Frank Blair Williams, Clerk of Superior Court

.i;

■■3

■H

39 of 39

■

■>.

■■ft!.

.■or

APPENDIX B - Decisions of the State Trial Court

APPENDIX B

Appendix B -Exhibit 1 - Order - WCSC Judge ‘s November 18, 2021 Denying

Appellant’s Caveat2.........................................................................................

Appendix B-Exhibit 2 - Order - WCSC Judge Tally’s January 7, 2020 Order for

Caveat 1..............................................................................................................

Appendix B-Exhibit 3 - Extracts Pages of NCCOA-R pp. 208-219 - WCSC T. pp. 18-29

Transcript Judge Rozier’s November 16, 2021 Hearing

101

Appendix B-Exhibit 4 - Appellant’s E-mail to TCA Requesting Rule 52 and Rule59 November 30, 2021 (other E-mails upto December 22, 2021 to the TCA requesting the

Rule 52 are in the NCCO-R but to save space are not included in Appendix B)............ 115

Appendix B-Exhibit 4A - Appellant’s E-maill to TCA Requesting Rule 52 and Rule59 December 14, 2021 (other E-mails upto December 22, 2021 to the TCA requesting the

Rule 52 are in the NCCO-R but to save space are not included in Appendix B)

119

Appendix B -Exhibit 1 - Order - WCSC Judge Rozier's

November 18, 2021 Denying Appellant's Caveat2

NORTH CAROLINA

iTftrSENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE

•HStTPERIORCOURT DIVISION

16 -E-1390

WAKE COUNTY

KATHY ALLEN,

Caveator,

ffl\ NOV 18 PH I D

WAKE CO.jC,$.C.

•B

,A-„n

ORDER

)

ARTHUR ALLEN, et a!.,

)

Propounders

THIS MATTER came on to be heard and was heard before the undersigned Superior Court

judge presiding On November 16,2021. at a Session of Superior Court for WakeCouhtyh'eldviftually

upon the Caveator’s Motion to Align Caveat Parties and Motion to. Continue and the Propounders

Motions to Dismiss pursuant tp NC.G.S. 1A-1, Rules 12(b)(4),(6), and (7). Appearing via Webex

were Caveator Kathy Allen and Attorney Anthony Kiish for Propounded.

The Court having considered the arguments of both parties, having reviewed the pleadings

and tilings of record, having reviewed the submissions, and haying reviewed the priororders ofThc

Honorable Mary Ann Tally and The Honorable G. Bryan; Collihs filed relatedtifthe parties; finds that

the motion to dismiss should be allowed.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that:

1. Caveator’s motion to continue is denied.

2. Prppoundei ’s motion to dismiss is allowed.

3. This Action is hereby dismissed with prejudice.

This the 1# day of November, 2021,

The Hofedrable Vinston Rozicr, Jr.

Superior Court Judge.Presiding

2 of 24

Appendix B

/if

i's

Appendix B -Exhibit 1 - Order - WCSC Judge Rozier

November 18, 2021 Denying Caveat2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document (order denying Caveator's motion

to continue and granting propounder's motion to dismiss) was served on the persons ind Icated

below by email, and or postage prepaid, addressed as follows:

Kathy R. Allen

26 55"’ St

Washington, DC 20019

and

2526 Poole Rd

Raleigh; NC 27610

Caveator

Jay Allen

2526 Poole Rd

Raleigh, NC 27610

Propounder

Anthony A, Klish

anthbnvgSmaftinnish&ward.cbni

Attorney for Defendant 1. Allen Allen

This the.......

day of November, 2021.

A Mi

Shanda R. Smallwood

Judicial Assistant - 10th Judicial District

Shanda.R.Smallw66d@ncc6urts.org

3 of 24

; !

.y.v.v.

Appendix B-Exhibit 2 - WCSC-Judge Tally's January 7, 2020 Order Dismissing Caveatl

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

. -

WAKE COUN TY ;

JAY K. ALLEN,

• ’

!N 'THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE

SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION

FILE NO. 16-E-1390

’sy

)

Petitioner,

) order Granting respondent

VvS.

)

ARTHUR L. ALLEN

Respondent.

)

ARTHUR L. ALLEN's

MOTION TO DISMISS

This ease was beard by the Honorable Superior Court Judge Tally presiding during the

January 06,2020 Civil Session of Wake County Superior Court on Respondent Arthur All en’s

motion, pursuant to G.S. 1 A-1, Rules 12(b)(6), 12(b)(7), and 41(b) to dismiss the case against

Petilionei/Caveator on the grounds of failure to assert a claim upon which relief can be granted,

failure to join a necessary party, and for failure to prosecute.

Alter reviewing the pleadings, and after hearing arguments, the Court is of the opinion

that Respondent's Arthur L. Alien's motion to dismiss should be allowed due to

Petitioner s/Caveator’s failure to assert a claim upon which relief can be granted and for

Petitioner’s/Caveator’s failure to prosecute the ease.

It IS THEREFORE, ORDERED, ADJUDGED. AND DECREED that:

1. Respondent’s Arthur L. Allen’s motion to dismiss is allowed;

2. Respondent’s Arthur L. Allen be dismissed as a parly to this action;

3. I hat this Action is hereby dismissed with prejudice; and

4. That the Costs of this action be taxed against PelitioneiVCavealor.

This the T* day of January, 2020.

The Honorable Superior CourtJmigc Presiding

4 of 24

"il

Appendix B-Exhibit 2 - WCSC-Judge Tally's January 7, 2020 Order Dismissing Caveatl

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

COUNTY OF WAKE

JAY K, ALLEN,

Petitioner,

vs.

ARTHUR ALLEN,

Respondent

THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE

SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION

16E1390

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF

ORDER GRANTING RESPOND

ARTHUR L, ALLEN’S MOTION TO

DISMISS

The undersigned, as counsel for Respondent Arthur Allen, certifies that on this day the

“Order Granding Respondent Arthur L. Allen’s Motion to Dismiss” was served upon the

following parties by depositing a copy thereof in the United States mail, postage prepaid, and

addressed as follows:

Kathy R. Allen

2526 Poole Road

Raleigh, NC 27610

Kathy R. Allen

26 55th Street NE

Washington, DC 20019

Jay Alien

2526 Poole Road

Raleigh, NC 27610

Steve R. Allen

778 Duffield Drive NW

Atlanta, GA 30318

This the 28th day of January, 2020.

MAGINNIS LAW, PLJC

.t•*.

Anthony A. Klish

Attorney for Arthur Allen

Office: (919) 424-4951

Facsimile: (919) 882-8763

Email: Anthony@MaginnisLaw.com

5 of 24

Appendix B-Exhibit 3-Extract Pages of 208-219

Transcript Judge Rozie^gg^lger^, $p. 1 gfjiyflg