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

NCCOA #22-601 Exhibit 1 Order March 27, 2023 Denied Appellant’s Motion to Hold

Oral Arguments................................................................................................................ 1

NCCOA #22-601 Exhibit 2 Order May 4, 2023, Granted Appellees’ MTD

NCCOA #22-601 Exhibit 3 Order May 22, 2023 Denied Appellant’s Motion to Stay

Mandate of the NC-COA May 4, 2023 Order That Granted Appellees' Motion to

Dismiss (MTD) and Was Without an pinion............................................................... 3

NCCOA #22-601 Exhibit 4 Order June 6, 2023 Denied Appellant’s Motion for

En Banc Rehearing..............................................................................................

NCCOA #22-601 Exhibit 4A Order June 6, 2023 Denied Appellant’s Motion to Stay

case for an opinion, and mandate.................................................................................. 5

NCSC Excluded Exhibit 5-6 Orders are in NCSC Orders (Appendix 4) ..

NCCOA - #22-601 Exhibit 7 Order Assigned To Panel Case #22-601 on

February 14, 2023......................................................................................

NCCOA #22-601 Exhibit 8 Order Reassigned To New Panel Case #22-601 on March

20, 2023.......................................................... :....... ...................................................... 8

NCCOA #22-601 Exhibit 9 Docket sheet as of June 14, 2023...................................... 9

NCCOA #22-601 Exhibit 10 Order Grant Without Prejudice Appellant Motion to

Transmit Record July 5, 2023 (1 page), but NCCOA also did not sua sponte transmit

the record to NCSC when the July 25, 2023 NCSC notice of appeal was filed

Appellant’s Motions

NCCOA #22-601 Appellant Motion To Hold 04-11-2023 Oral Arguments Filed

March 24, 2023 Denied Signed by Clerk Eugene Soar.........................................

NCCOA #22-601 Appellant Amended En banc and Amended Rehearing Filed

February 27, 2023 Denied Signed by Clerk Eugene Soar......................................

NCCOA #22-601 Appellant’s Motion To Stay Mandate To The February 7, 2023 and

February 23, 2023 Order (Indicating No Opinion Was Filed for Appeal) Denied Signed by

Clerk Eugene Soar

Jlorth Carolina Court of Appeals

Fax: (919) 831-3615

Web: https://www.nccourts.gov

EUGENE H. SOAR, Clerk

Court of Appeals Building

One West Morgan Street

Raleigh, NC 27601

(919) 831-3600

From Wake

( 18CVS13119 )

Mailing Address:

P. O. Box 2779

Raleigh, NC 27602

Exhibit!-Order Grant Appellees MTD-05-04-2023.pdf

No. 22-601

KATHY R. ALLEN,

Plaintiff,

ARTHUR L. ALLEN et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

The following order was entered:

The motion filed in this cause on the 11th of January 2023 and designated 'Defendant-Appellees'

Joint Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff-Appellant's Appeal' is allowed. Appeal dismissed. Appellant to pay costs.

And it is considered and adjudged further, that Kathy R. Allen, do pay the costs of the appeal in this

Court incurred, to wit, the sum of Thirty Seven and 00/100 Dollars ($37.00), and execution issue therefor.

By order of the Court this the 4th of May 2023.

WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 4th day of May 2023.

Eugene H. Soar

Clerk, North Carolina Court of Appeals

Copy to:.

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

Mr. M. Duane Jones, Attorney at Law, For State Employees' Credit Union - (By Email)

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

Mr. William D. Harazin, Attorney at Law, For Wake County Superior Court Guardian ad Litem - (By Email)

The Honorable Clerk of Superior Court, Wake County

Page 1 of 17

§1111111

Jlorth Carolina Court of Appeals

Fax: (919) 831-3615

Web: https://www.nccourts.gov

EUGENE H. SOAR, Clerk

Court of Appeals Building

One West Morgan Street

Raleigh, NC 27601

(919)831-3600

From Wake

( 18CVS13119 )

Mailing Address:

P.O.Box 2779

Raleigh, NC 27602

Exhibit2 Order Denied Appellant Motion To Hold Oral Arguments

No. 22-601

KATHY R. ALLEN

Plaintiff,

ARTHUR L. ALLEN et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

The following order was entered:

The motion filed in this cause on the 24th of March 2023 and designated 'Appellant's [Partially/No

Position and Unconsented] Motion for Judge Panel to Schedule and Hold N.C. APP.R.29 (b) Oral Arguments

for This Case on April 11, 2023' is denied.

By order of the Court this the 27th of March 2023.

WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 27th day of March 2023.

Eugene H. Soar

Clerk, North Carolina Court of Appeals

Copy to:

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

Mr. M. Duane Jones, Attorney at Law, For State Employees’ Credit Union - (By Email)

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

Mr. William D. Harazin, Attorney at Law, For Wake County Superior Court Guardian ad Litem - (By Email)

Hon. Frank Blair Williams, Clerk of Superior Court

Page 2 of 17

11967 1

Movth 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

Mailing Address:

P. 0. Box 2779

Raleigh, NC 27602

From Wake

( 18CVS13119 )

Exhibit3-Order Denied Appellant Mot Stay Mandate Was Without Opinion

No. 22-601

KATHY R. ALLEN,

Plaintiff,

ARTHUR L. ALLEN et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

The following order was entered:

The motion filed in this cause on the 9th of May 2023 and designated 'Appellant's [Unconsented]

Motion to Stay Mandate of the NC-COA May 4, 2023 Order That Granted Appellees' Motion to Dismiss

(MTD) and Was Without an Opinion' is denied.

By order of the Court this the 22nd of May 2023.

WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 22nd day of May 2023.

Eugene H. Soar

Clerk, North Carolina Court of Appeals

Copy to:

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

Mr. M. Duane Jones, Attorney at Law, For State Employees' Credit Union - (By Email)

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

Mr. William D. Harazin, Attorney at Law, For Wake County Superior Court Guardian ad Litem - (By Email)

The Honorable Clerk of Superior Court, Wake County

Page 3 of 17

J^ortf) Carolina Court of Appeals

Fax: (919) 831-3615

Web:

https ://www.

■ • VW W I

Eugene H. Soar, Clerk

Court of Appeals Building

One West Morgan Street

Raleigh, NC 27601

(919) 831-3600

Mailing Address:

P. 0. Box 2779

Raleigh, NC 27602

From Wake County

(18 CVS 13119)

No. 22-601

Exhibit4-Order Denied Appellant Mot EnBanc Rehearing

KATHY R. ALLEN,

Plaintiff,

ARTHUR L. ALLEN, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

The following order was entered:

The motion filed in this cause on 19 May 2023 and designated "Appellant's Motion for En

Banc Rehearing" is denied. Judge Murphy did not take part in consideration of this motion.

By order of the Court this the 6th day of June 2023.

WITNESS my hand and the official seal of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, this the 6th

day of June 2023.

^*3—*—

Eugene H. Soar

Clerk, North Carolina Court of Appeals

Copy to:

Ms. Kathy R. Allen, For Allen, Kathy R.

Mr. M. Duane Jones, Hedrick Gardner Kincheloe & Garofalo, LLP, For State Employees' Credit Union

Mr. Anthony A. Klish, Maginnis Howard, For Allen, Arthur L., et al

Mr. William D. Harazin, William D. Harazin, PLLC, For Wake County Superior Court Guardian ad Litem

Clerk of Wake County Superior Court

Page 4 of 17

JlortJ) 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

( 18CVS13119 )

Mailing Address:

P. O. Box 2779

Raleigh, NC 27602

Exhibit4A-Order Denied Appellant MFR Of Mot Stay Mandate For Opinion

No. 22-601

KATHY R. ALLEN,

Plaintiff,

ARTHUR L. ALLEN et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

The following order was entered:

The motion filed in this cause on the 5th of June 2023 and designated 'Appellant's Motion for

Reconsideration (MFR) of NC-COA's 5/22/23 Order Denying Motion to Stay Mandate for Opinion’ is denied.

By order of the Court this the 6th of June 2023.

WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 6th day of June 2023.

Eugene H. Soar

Clerk, North Carolina Court of Appeals

Copy to:

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

Mr. M. Duane Jones, Attorney at Law, For State Employees' Credit Union - (By Email)

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

Mr. William D. Harazin, Attorney at Law, For Wake County Superior Court Guardian ad Litem - (By Email)

The Honorable Clerk of Superior Court, Wake County

Page 5 of 17

ISIlSi

JBortli Carolina Court of Appeals

EUGENE H. SOAR, Clerk

Fax: (919)831-3615

Court of Appeals Building

One West Morgan Street

Raleigh, NC 27601

(919) 831-3600

Web: https://www.nccourts.gov

Mailing Address:

P. 0. Box 2779

Raleigh, NC 27602

From Wake

( 18CVS13119 )

No. 22-601

Exhibit 7 - Order Assigned To Panel Case 601-02-14-2023

KATHY R. ALLEN,

Plaintiff,

ARTHUR L. ALLEN et al„

Defendants.

The following order was entered:

The motion filed in this cause on the 11th of January 2023 and designated 'Defendant-Appellees'

Joint Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff-Appellant's Appeal' is referred to the panel that will be assigned to hear the

appeal.

By order of the Court this the 14th of February 2023.

WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 14th day of February 2023.

Eugene H. Soar

Clerk, North Carolina Court of Appeals

Copy to:

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

Mr. M. Duane Jones, Attorney at Law, For State Employees' Credit Union - (By Email)

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

Mr. William D. Harazin, Attorney at Law, For Wake County Superior Court Guardian ad Litem - (By Email)

Hon. Frank Blair Williams, Clerk of Superior Court

1967 !

J^ortl) Carolina

Court of Appeals

EUGENE H. SOAR, Clerk

Fax: (919) 831-3615

Web: https://www.nccourts.gov

No. 22-601

Court of Appeals Building

One West Morgan Street

Raleigh, NC 27601

(919) 831-3600

From Wake

( 18CVS13119)

Mailing Address:

P. O. Box 2779

Raleigh, NC 27602

Exhibit 8-Order Reassigned To New Panel Case 601-03-20-2023

KATHY R. ALLEN,

Plaintiff,

ARTHUR L. ALLEN et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

The following order was entered:

This case was originally calendared to be heard without oral argument on Tuesday, 11 April 2023

before a panel consisting of Judge Valerie Zachary, Judge Hunter Murphy, and Judge Jeff Carpenter.

IT IS NOW ORDERED that this case shall be heard without oral argument before a panel consisting

of Judge Valerie Zachary, Judge Jeff Carpenter, and Judge Julee Flood.

By order of the Court this the 20th of March 2023.

WITNESS my hand and the seal of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, this the 20th day of March

2023.

^3------Eugene H. Soar

Clerk, North Carolina Court of Appeals

Copy to:

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

Mr. M. Duane Jones, Attorney at Law, For State Employees’ Credit Union - (By Email)

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

Mr. William D. Harazin, Attorney at Law, For Wake County Superior Court Guardian ad Litem - (By Email)

Hon. Frank Blair Williams, Clerk of Superior Court

No. 22-601

^Carolina Court of Appels

Nor

Docket Sheet

Allen v. Allen

Case Number:

22-601

As of:

06/14/2023

Case Closed:

Exhibit 9-NCCOA Docketsheet as of 06-14-2023

Close Date:

Case Type:

Civil (Tort, Contract, Real Property)

Mediation:

KATHY R. ALLEN,

Plaintiff,

ARTHUR L. ALLEN etal.,

Defendants.

Docket Date:

08-01-2022

File Date:

07-25-2022

File Time:

01:04

Acquired Date:

07-25-2022

Bond Collected:

Docket Fee:

Yes

Pauper:

Print Deposit:

State Appeals:

Heard In:

Superior Courts

Resp. Due

Resp. Recvd

Mailed Out

Ruling

Ruling Dete

Allowed

08-15-2022

Other

08-29-2022

Allowed

10-05-2022

Allowed

12-07-2022

History

Venue:

Wake (10)

To SC:

From SC:

Lower Court Numbe r(s)

Location:

Wake (10)

Judge:

Paul C. Ridgeway

Case #:

18CVS13119

Tracking/Argue

Argue Date:

04-11-2023 (No oral argument by Rule 30(e)) colspan=5

Opinion

Documents

Document

Date Recvd

(1) RECORD

07-25-2022

(2) NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

08-10-2022

(3) M-EXT-BR

08-12-2022

(4) M-GEN

08-15-2022

(5) M-EXT-BR

10-04-2022

(6) APPELLANT BRIEF

11-10-2022

(7) M-GEN

11-21-2022

(8) M-GEN

12-05-2022

Dismissed as moot

12-07-2022

(9) M-EXT-BR

12-07-2022

Allowed

12-08-2022

Cert of Service

Rec/Brf Due

08-02-2022

08-28-2022

11-14-2022

12-04-2022

No. 22-601

(10) M-GEN

12-08-2022

(11) M-GEN

12-09-2022

(12) AMENDED

12-12-2022

12-09-2022

(13) M-GEN

12-22-2022

(14) M-DSSAPP

01-11-2023

(15) APPELLEE BRIEF

01-12-2023

(16) M-EXT-RS

01-19-2023

(17) M-EXT-RS

12-21-2022

Denied

12-22-2022

Denied

12-13-2022

01-06-2023

Denied

01-11-2023

02-13-2023

Allowed

05-04-2023

01-19-2023

Allowed

01-20-2023

01-19-2023

Allowed

01-20-2023

(18) REPLY

02-24-2023

(19) M-CONTIN

03-17-2023

Denied

03-24-2023

(20) COURT ORDER

03-20-2023

Special Order

03-20-2023

(21) M-GEN

03-24-2023

Denied

03-27-2023

(22) M-GEN

05-09-2023

Denied

05-22-2023

(23) M-EN-BANC-REHEARING

05-19-2023

Denied

06-06-2023

(24) M-GEN

06-05-2023

Denied

06-06-2023

12-08-2022

12-13-2022

01-13-2023

02-27-2023

1 - RECORD

Filed: 07-25-2022 @ 13:04:36

FOR: Plaintiff-Appellant Allen, Kathy R.

BY : Ms. Kathy R. Allen

2 - NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

Filed: 08-10-2022 @ 19:10:40

FOR: Plaintiff-Appellant Allen, Kathy R.

BY : Ms. Kathy R. Allen

3 - M-EXT-BR (Allowed)-08-15-2022

Filed: 08-12-2022 @ 16:23:30

FOR: Plaintiff-Appellant Allen, Kathy R.

BY : Ms. Kathy R. Allen

The following order was entered:

The motion filed in this cause on the 12th of August 2022 and designated 'Motion to 60-day Extension' is decided as

follows: Plaintiff-Appellant's brief shall be filed on or before 10 October 2022.

By order of the Court this the 15th of August 2022.

4 - MOTION APPELLANT'S MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD ABOUT APPELLEES' REPRESENTATION AND THE E-FILING FOR

THIS CASE (Other) - 08-29-2022

Filed: 08-15-2022 @ 14:43:13

FOR: Plaintiff-Appellant Allen, Kathy R.

BY : Ms. Kathy R. Allen

The following order was entered:

The motion filed in this cause on the 15th of August 2022 and designated 'Appellant's Motion to Supplement the

Record About Appellees' Representation and the E-Filing for this Case' is decided as follows: Motion for extension of

time to file Appellant's brief is dismissed as moot. The remainder of the motion is denied.

By order of the Court this the 29th of August 2022.

No. 22-601

5 - M-EXT-BR (Allowed) -10-05-2022

Filed: 10-04-2022 @ 16:08:02

FOR: Plaintiff-Appellant Allen, Kathy R.

BY : Ms. Kathy R. Allen

The following order was entered:

The motion filed in this cause on the 4th of October 2022 and designated 'Appellant's [Consented] 2nd Motion to 30Day Extension to November 10, 2022 for Brief Due Date' is allowed. Plaintiff-Appellant's brief shall be filed on or

before 10 November 2022.

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

6-APPELLANT BRIEF

Filed: 11-10-2022 @ 16:49:21

FOR: Plaintiff-Appellant Allen, Kathy R.

BY : Ms. Kathy R. Allen

7 - MOTION APPELLANT'S [UNCONSENTED] MOTION TO ADD PAGE NUMBERS TO THE APPELLANT'S BRIEF WITHOUT AMENDING IT

(Allowed) -12-07-2022

Filed: 11-21-2022 @ 16:58:35

FOR: Plaintiff-Appellant Allen, Kathy R.

BY : Ms. Kathy R. Allen

The following order was entered:

The motion filed in this cause on the 21st of November 2022 and designated 'Appellant's [Unconsented] Motion to

Add Page Numbers to the Appellant's Brief Without Amending it' is allowed. Plaintiff-Appellant shall file a substitute

brief consisting of her 10 November 2022 brief with the addition of page numbering on or before 9 December 2022.

No other additions or modifications to the brief shall be made.

By order of the Court this the 7th of December 2022.

RESPONSE TO MOTION APPELLANT'S [UNCONSENTED] MOTION TO ADD PAGE NUMBERS TO THE APPELLANT'S

BRIEF WITHOUT AMENDING IT

Filed: 12-05-2022

BY : Mr. M. Duane Jones

HEDRICK GARDNER KINCHELOE & GAROFALO, PLLC

8 - MOTION APPELLANT'S [UNCONSENTED] MOTION TO AMEND APPELLANT BRIEF FILED 11/10/2022 TO ADD PAGE NUMBERING

(Dismissed as moot) -12-07-2022

Filed: 12-05-2022 @ 14:46:12

FOR: Plaintiff-Appellant Allen, Kathy R.

BY : Ms. Kathy R. Allen

The following order was entered:

The motion filed in this cause on the 5th of December 2022 and designated 'Appellant's [Unconsented] Motion to

Amend Appellant Brief filed 11/10/2022 to Add Page Numbering' is dismissed as moot.

By order of the Court this the 7th of December 2022.

9 - M-EXT-BR (Allowed) - 12-08-2022

Filed: 12-07-2022 @ 14:31:30

FOR: Defendant-Appellee State Employees' Credit Union

BY : Mr. M. Duane Jones

HEDRICK GARDNER KINCHELOE & GAROFALO, PLLC

The following order was entered:

The motion filed in this cause on the 7th of December 2022 and designated 'Defendant-Appellees’ Joint Motion for an

Extension of Time to File Brief is allowed. Defendant-Appellees' brief shall be filed on or before 13 January 2023.

By order of the Court this the 8th of December 2022.

RESPONSE TO M-EXT-BR

Filed: 12-08-2022

BY : Ms. Kathy R. Allen

10 - MOTION APPELLANT'S MOTI

Filed: 12-08-2022 @ 17:11:07

FOR: Plaintiff-Appellant Allen, Kathy R.

BY : Ms. Kathy R. Allen

No. 22-601

SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD TO E-FILIN

KINGS (Denied) -12-22-2022

The following order was entered:

The motion filed in this cause on the 8th of December 2022 and designated 'Appellant's Motion to Supplement the

Record to e-filing Markings' is denied.

By order of the Court this the 22nd of December 2022.

11 - MOTION [MOTION TO RESCIND ORDER] (Denied) -12-13-2022

Filed: 12-09-2022 @ 12:45:54

FOR: Plaintiff-Appellant Allen, Kathy R.

BY : Ms. Kathy R. Allen

The following order was entered:

The motion filed in this cause on the 9th of December 2022 and designated '[Motion to Rescind Order]' is denied.

By order of the Court this the 13th of December 2022.

12-APPELLANT BRIEF AMENDED

Filed: 12-12-2022 @ 14:39:08

FOR: Plaintiff-Appellant Allen, Kathy R.

BY : Ms. Kathy R. Allen

13 - MOTION MOTION FOR TEMPORARY STAY/MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (Denied) - 01-11-2023

Filed: 12-22-2022 @ 14:59:19

FOR: Plaintiff-Appellant Allen, Kathy R.

BY : Ms. Kathy R. Allen

The following order was entered:

The motion filed in this cause on the 22nd of December 2022 and designated 'Motion for Temporary Stay/Motion for

Reconsideration' is denied.

By order of the Court this the 11 th of January 2023.

14 - M-DSSAPP (Allowed) - 05-04-2023

Filed: 01-11-2023 @ 13:18:03

FOR: Defendant-Appellee State Employees' Credit Union

BY : Mr. M. Duane Jones

HEDRICK GARDNER KINCHELOE & GAROFALO LLP

The following order was entered:

The motion filed in this cause on the 11th of January 2023 and designated 'Defendant-Appellees' Joint Motion to

Dismiss Plaintiff-Appellant's Appeal' is allowed. Appeal dismissed. Appellant to pay costs.

And it is considered and adjudged further, that Kathy R. Allen, do pay the costs of the appeal in this Court incurred, to

wit, the sum of Thirty Seven and 00/100 Dollars ($37.00), and execution issue therefor.

By order of the Court this the 4th of May 2023.

RESPONSE TO M-DSSAPP

Filed: 02-13-2023

BY : Ms. Kathy R. Allen

15-APPELLEE BRIEF

Filed: 01-12-2023 @ 11:09:43

FOR: Defendant-Appellee State Employees' Credit Union

BY : Mr. M. Duane Jones

HEDRICK GARDNER KINCHELOE & GAROFALO LLP

No. 22-601

16 - M-EXT-RS (Allowed) - 01-20-2023

Filed: 01-19-2023 @ 14:47:13

FOR: Plaintiff-Appellant Allen, Kathy R.

BY : Ms. Kathy R. Allen

■'w

The following order was entered:

The motion filed in this cause on the 19th of January 2023 and designated 'Appellant's [Consented] Motion to an

Extension Until 2-11-2023 to Reply to Defendant-Appellees' Joint Motion to Dismiss Filed 1-11-2023' is allowed.

Appellant's response to Joint Motion to Dismiss shall be filed on or before 13 February 2023.

By order of the Court this the 20th of January 2023.

17-M-EXT-RS (Allowed)-01-20-2023

Filed: 01-19-2023 @ 14:57:12

FOR: Plaintiff-Appellant Allen, Kathy R.

BY : Ms. Kathy R. Allen

The following order was entered:

The motion filed in this cause on the 19th of January 2023 and designated 'Appellant's [Consented] Motion to an

Extension Until 2-24-2023 to Reply to Defendant-Appellees' Joint Brief Filed 1-12-2023' is allowed. Appellant's reply

brief shall be filed on or before 24 February 2023.

By order of the Court this the 20th of January 2023.

18 - APPELLANT BRIEF REPLY

Filed: 02-24-2023 @ 14:11:41

FOR: Plaintiff-Appellant Allen, Kathy R.

BY : Ms. Kathy R. Allen

19 - M-CONTIN (Denied) - 03-24-2023

Filed: 03-17-2023 @ 13:47:10

FOR: Plaintiff-Appellant Allen, Kathy R.

BY : Ms. Kathy R. Allen

The following order was entered:

The motion filed in this cause on the 17th of March 2023 and designated 'Appellant's [Unconsented] Motion for

Extension to Uncalendar Case Scheduled for April 11, 2023 for at Least 30-45 Days and After May 30, 2023' is

denied.

By order of the Court this the 24th of March 2023.

20 - CTJDRDER COURT ORDER (Special Order) - 03-20-2023

Filed: 03-20-2023 @ 14:01:49

FOR:

BY : N.C. Court of Appeals

The following order was entered:

This case was originally calendared to be heard without oral argument on Tuesday, 11 April 2023 before a panel

consisting of Judge Valerie Zachary, Judge Hunter Murphy, and Judge Jeff Carpenter.

IT IS NOW ORDERED that this case shall be heard without oral argument before a panel consisting of Judge Valerie

Zachary, Judge Jeff Carpenter, and Judge Julee Flood.

By order of the Court this the 20th of March 2023.

No. 22-601

j^B^NCTPOSITION

AND

UNCONSENTEDT

motI^®

21 - MOTION APPELLANT'S [PART

OR JUDGE PANEL TO SCHEDULE AND HOLD

N.C. APP.R.29 (B) ORAL ARGUMENJT^fOR THIS CASE ON APRIL 11,2023 (Denied)^3--27-2023

Filed: 03-24-2023 @ 16:29:44

FOR: Plaintiff-Appellant Allen, Kathy R.

BY : Ms. Kathy R. Allen

The following order was entered:

The motion filed in this cause on the 24th of March 2023 and designated ’Appellant’s [Partially/No Position and

Unconsented] Motion for Judge Panel to Schedule and Hold N.C. APP.R.29 (b) Oral Arguments for This Case on April

11, 2023’ is denied.

By order of the Court this the 27th of March 2023.

22 - MOTION APPELLANT'S [UNCONSENTED] MOTION TO STAY MANDATE OF THE NC-COA MAY 4, 2023 ORDER THAT GRANTED

APPELLEES' MOTION TO DISMISS (MTD) AND WAS WITHOUT AN OPINION (Denied) - 05-22-2023

Filed: 05-09-2023 @ 13:27:13

FOR: Plaintiff-Appellant Allen, Kathy R.

BY : Ms. Kathy R. Allen

The following order was entered:

The motion filed in this cause on the 9th of May 2023 and designated 'Appellant's [Unconsented] Motion to Stay

Mandate of the NC-COA May 4, 2023 Order That Granted Appellees' Motion to Dismiss (MTD) and Was Without an

Opinion' is denied.

By order of the Court this the 22nd of May 2023.

23 - M-EN-BANC-REHEARING (Denied) - 06-06-2023

Filed: 05-19-2023 @ 14:25:18

FOR: Plaintiff-Appellant Allen, Kathy R.

BY : Ms. Kathy R. Allen

The following order was entered:

The motion filed in this cause on 19 May 2023 and designated "Appellant's Motion for En Banc Rehearing" is denied.

Judge Murphy did not take part in consideration of this motion.

By order of the Court this the 6th of June 2023.

24 - MOTION APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (MFR) OF NC-COA'S 5/22/23 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY

MANDATE FOR OPINION (Denied) - 06-06-2023

Filed: 06-05-2023 @ 13:25:07

FOR: Plaintiff-Appellant Allen, Kathy R.

BY : Ms. Kathy R. Allen

The following order was entered:

The motion filed in this cause on the 5th of June 2023 and designated 'Appellant's Motion for Reconsideration (MFR)

of NC-COA's 5/22/23 Order Denying Motion to Stay Mandate for Opinion' is denied.

By order of the Court this the 6th of June 2023.

Financial

Information

Receipts

Date Charged |

Charge Type

Amount Chaged

Amount Paid

Document

Pages

Receipt #|

Date Paldj

01-13-2023

Printing

28.00

APPELLEE BRIEF

R012022123

01-23-2023

08-01-2022

Docket Fee

10.00

R082000322

08-01-2022

Bond

250.00

R082000322

08-01-2022

08-02-2022

Printing

308.00

R082008822

08-12-2022

RECORD

176

No. 22-601

11-14-2022

Printing

52.50

APPELLANT BRIEF

R112021422

11-28-2022

12-13-2022

Printing

54.25

APPELLANT BRIEF

R122024622

12-28-2022

02-27-2023

Printing

42.00

APPELLANT BRIEF

R032026523

03-14-2023

Assess

37.00

R062004623

06-06-2023

Payment Date

Payment Type

Payments

Exhibits

Amount

Check Number

Transcript(s) Electronically Filed

allen-v-allen-et-al.-18-cvs-0101-29-3119-2020.pdf

Parties

Party Name

Role

Allen, Kathy R.

Plaintiff-Appellant

Allen, Arthur L.

Defendant-Appellee

Klish, Anthony A.

Defendant-Appellee

State Employees' Credit Union

Defendant-Appellee

Wake County Superior Court Guardian ad Litem

Defendant-Appellee

Attorneys

Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellant - Allen, Kathy R.

Ms. Kathy R. Allen [Primary Attorney]

Pro Se

allenkl 101 @comcast.net

26 55th Street NE

Washington, DC 20019

(202) 399-6225

Attorney for Defendant-Appellee - State Employees' Credit Union

Mr. M. Duane Jones [Primary Attorney]

Attorney at Law

djones@hedrickgardner.com

HEDRICK GARDNER KINCHELOE & GAROFALO LLP

4201 Congress St., Suite 300

Charlotte, NC 28209

(704) 602-8009

No. 22-601

Attorney for Appellee - Allen, Arthur L., et al

Mr. Anthony A. Klish [Primary Attorney]

Attorney at Law

Anthony@maginnishoward.com

7706 Six Forks Road

Suite 101

Raleigh, NC 27615

(919) 526-0450

Attorney for Defendant-Appellee - Wake County Superior Court Guardian ad Litem

Mr. William D. Harazin [Primary Attorney]

Attorney at Law

wharazin@harazinlaw.com

WILLIAM D. HARAZIN, PLLC

P.O. Box 1837

Raleigh, NC 27602

(919)349-2930

igjgj

§s

iiiiai

515

JBorth Carolina

Court

appeals

EUGENE H. SOAR, Clerk

'.nccourts.gov

Court of Appeals Building

One West Morgan Street

Raleigh, NC 27601

(919) 831-3600

Mailing Address:

P. 0. Box 2779

Raleigh, NC 27602

From Wake

( 18CVS13119 )

No. 22-601

Exhibit 10-Order Grant Without Prejudice Appellant Mot to Transmit Record

KATHY R. ALLEN,

Plaintiff,

ARTHUR L. ALLEN et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

The following order was entered:

The motion filed in this cause on the 5th of July 2023 and designated 'Appellant's Motion to Request

NC-COA Transmit the Record for Case #22-601 to the NC-Supreme Court (NCSC) for Case #161P23' is

denied without prejudice.

By order of the Court this the 5th of July 2023.

WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 5th day of July 2023.

Eugene H. Soar

Clerk, North Carolina Court of Appeals

Copy to:

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

Mr. M. Duane Jones, Attorney at Law, For State Employees’ Credit Union - (By Email)

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

Mr. William D. Harazin, Attorney at Law, For Wake County Superior Court Guardian ad Litem - (By Email)

The Honorable Clerk of Superior Court, Wake County

Exhibit6-]l^^)n Appellant To Hold Oral Argument^^April 11, 2023

. N.C. APPELLATE COURT

10TH DISTRICT

No. COA22-601

On appeal from Wake County Superior Court

Case #18-CV-013119 (additional special hearings and

estate filings #18 SP1746 (foreclosure),

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

and 16-E-001390 (caveat for estate))

Appellant

Kathy R. Allen (“KRA”/”Plt”) see infra

Defendant 1: Arthur L. Allen (“ALA”/”Defl”) see infra [sic deceased]

Defendant 2: Anthony A. Klish (“AAK” /”Def2”) see infra

Defendant 3: State Employees Credit Union (“SECU” /”Def3”) see infra

C/O Cathleen M. Plaut

Defendant 4: Wake County Super. Ct. Guardian Ad Litem

(“WDH” /”Def4”)) see infra C/O William D. Harazin, PLLC

Collectively (“Defs ”, “Defl-4 ”) Appellees

APPELLANT’S [Partiallv/No position and Unconsented] Motion For Judge Panel to

Schedule and Hold

N.C. App. R. 29('b') Oral Arguments for this Case on April 1L 2023

Why this motion

Appellant, Kathy R. Allen, who is having to proceed pro se hereby provides this motion

by N.C. App. R. 37 or a more appropriate rule for cases on the calendar. On March 14,2023 the

Appellant received an e-Filings this case is scheduled with Panel #2 the Honorable Valerie J.

Zachary honorable Hunter Murphy Hon. Jeff Carpenter [for April 11, 2023] On March 17, 2023

the Appellant filed a motion for ‘Extension/Continuance’ to allow the attorney’s office retained

to review this case.

Today on March 24, 2023 the Appellant received an Order denying the 30-45 day

extension. Also on March 20, 2023 that the judge panel for the case was instead Judge Valerie

Zachary, Judge Jeff Carpenter, and Judge Julee Flood. The Appellant thinks it is also

Page 12 of 17

^^^ppellant To Hold Oral Arguments ori^^i

Exhibit6-Moti

1 11,2023

appropriate for the court judge-panel to hold Oral Arguments for this case not do s they have

deny them, and to review NC-COA’s procedures for them and in this ambiguous Order for them.

Contrary to Appellees’ suggesting ‘a continuance for retained lawyer’s review’ was delay it and

this motion is not to delay but maintain and present the Appellant’s brief merits before a ‘live’

judge-panel to her loss and conduct of the Appellees.

See FRAP Rule 34. Oral Argument... (2) Standards. Oral argument must be allowed in

every case.... (f) SUBMISSION ON BRIEFS. The parties may agree to submit a case for decision on

the briefs, but the court may direct that the case be argued.” Thus denying Oral Argument

motion would deprive the Appellant of an opportunity to resent this case to the court.

That being so, with the timeline also being a factor and with the March 24, 2023 Order

that denied the ‘Motion for Extension/Continuance’ for the legal office retained to review this

case and the Appellant’s timeline to her recourse for the case requests by at least N.C. App. R.

29(b) or more pertinent rule that Oral Arguments be held, so the Appellant can present her

arguments to the case merits and as in the briefs and replies filed.

Deny Appellees Any Costs and Lawyer Fees and Purported Sanctions for Having to and to Reply

to This N.C. Supreme Court Notice of Appeal 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 to the

foreclosure action and had several opportunities to correct their wrong and misrepresentations

about it but continued to do so. They also ‘without a word’ to correct the deficiency or requirement

to the N.C. App. R. 7 (transcription contract) and R. 11 proposed record) and is their conduct not

the Appellant’s that caused the filing of the case in Wake County Superior Court and this NCCOA appeal.

Consent for this motion

Page 13 of 17

Exhibit6-^J^on Appellant To Hold Oral Argumenl^^ April 11, 2023

On today 03-24-2023 approx. 1:30pm EST the Appellant sent an E-mail with a copy of

this motion to the Defendants and/or their attorneys saying “Duane/WHarazin/Anthony Klish

(ALA): This E-mail is to request your consent of the attached Appellant's Motion that Oral

Arguments be Scheduled for this case. Please reply by 4:00pm EST today. If I do not receive

you reply by then I will file it [Unconsented], but if you plan to provide a reply I would ask that

you do your rely ASAP tomorrow or by Monday 03-27-2023 after receiving the eFiling, so the

court does not put it on hold for the usual 10 days for your reply—and motion to schedule Oral

Arguments is preferred.”

7. . On 03-24-2023 1:47pm EST Duane (SECU/Defendant 3’s) attorney replied: “You may

respond that I take no position on the motion. I will leave that up to the Court of Appeals panel.

Thank you, Duane.”

By 4:00pm none of the other Defendants (Appelleesl/2 and Defendant4) had replied, so

it is being filed [Partially Consented] and the motion should be granted and the April 11, 2023

session for this case scheduled to include Oral Arguments or rescheduled to allow for them.

Granting this motion does not prejudice either party except for the Appellant who should

be provided opportunity to hold R. 29(b) Oral Arguments so as to properly present her case by R.

30(a). As supra it does not prejudice the parties except the Appellant who has a substantial loss

at the hands of these Appellees and should be allowed to present her case.

Respectfully submitted this the 24th day of March, 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

Page 14 of 17

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-l 397 (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 BA NC 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

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.

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

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 hot procedurally

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

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= 1 &a=0&dev= 1 ”.

13.

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

dismissal when tbe 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

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.

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

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]

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-hearing1 (Doc.#39) and

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

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.

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:

allenk 1101 @comcast.net

Telephone No: (202) 399-6225

Alternate Certificate of service address:

2526 Poole Road Raleigh, NC 27610-2820

APPENDIX B - Decisions of the State Trial Court

Extracted exhibit pages of NCCOA-R ([pp. 1-150])

online at: https://www.ncappellatecourts.org/show-file.php?document_id=309898

WCSC Judge Gwynn’s February 14, 2020 Order Granted Defendants’ MTD (R. Exhibit

WCSC Judge Ridgeway’s December 13, 2021 Order Denied MFR Rule 59 (R. Exhibit7)

WCSC Judge Ridgeway’s - Order - December 18, 2021 to exclude Judge Futrell’s

May/June 2019 Orders (R. Exhibit 8)

WCSC Judge Ridgeway’s - Amended Order - December 20, 2021 for Notice of appeal

to correct service and add case title (R. Exhibit 9)

EXHIBIT 6

Page 74 of 150

Judge Gwyn's Order Dismissing Appeal and Gatekeeping- Exhibt 6

NORTH CAROLINA

IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE

SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION

18 CVS 13119

FCB 17 H 5- ■! 2

WAKE COUNTY

TlMI: CO^C-S.C.

KATHY R. ALLENv

)

■)

Plaintiff,

vs.

ARTHUR L. ALLEN, ANTHONY A. KLISH,

STATE EMPLOYEES’ CREDIT UNION, and

WAKE COUNTY SUPERIOR CT. GUARDIAN

AD LITEM,

Defendants.

)

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S APPEAL

AND ISSUANCE OF

GATEKEEPING ORDER

)

This case was heard by the undersigned Superior Court Judge, presiding during the

January 27, 2020 Civil Session of Wake County Superior Court on Defendants’ Motion to

Dismiss Plaintiffs Appeal and for Gatekeeping Order. After reviewing the pleadings and other

documents of record, and after hearing arguments of Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants, the

Court makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT:

Plaintiff filed her Notice of Appeal on October 29, 2019.

N.C. R. App. P. Rule 7(a) provides that within fourteen days after filing the notice

of appeal, the plaintiff shall contract for the transcription of the proceedings as she deems

necessary and file and serve written documentation of the transcript contract with the Clerk of

Court and serve a copy on all other parties of record.

Plaintiff failed to serve a copy any transcript contract on Defendants, and a review

of the court file indicates that Plaintiff has not filed a copy of any transcript contract with the

Clerk of Court.

Page 75 of 150

1 of 8

Judge Gwyn's Order Dismissing Appeal and Gatekeeping- Exhibt 6

The parties did not settle the record on appeal by agreement pursuant to N.C. R.

App. P. Rule 11(a).

Consequently, pursuant to N.C. R. App. P. Rule 11(b) Plaintiff was required to

serve a proposed Record on Appeal on Defendants within thirty-five days of filing her Notice of

Appeal. The deadline for serving the proposed Record on Appeal expired on December 3, 2019.

Plaintiff failed to serve a proposed Record on Appeal in a timely manner as

required by N.C. R. App. P. Rule 11(b).

The following is a list of pleadings served by Plaintiff on Defendants before her

claims against all Defendants were dismissed and her post-dismissal motions denied: (a) Initial

Complaint filed on October 26, 2018; (b) No Hearing Required Emergency Motion to Stay

Foreclosure Hearing Scheduled for November 5, 2018 filed on October 23, 2018; (c) Hearing

Not Requested Unconsented Motion OTHR-ProHacVice (Pro Se) is it required? filed on

November 21, 2018; (d) Pit (KRA)’s Response to SECU Motion to Dismiss filed on November

21, 2018; (e) Pit (KRA)’s Opposition to William D. Harazin (Wake County Super. Ct. Ad Litem)

Amended Motion to Dismiss filed on December 14, 2018; (f) Pit (KRA)’s Opposition to

Anthony A. Klish Motion to Dismiss filed on December 14, 2018; (g) Pit (KRA)’s Opposition to

Arthur L. Allen Motion to Dismiss filed on December 14, 2018; (h) Motion Hearing not

requested - Unconsented Emergency Motion to Stay 2-11-2019 Hearing filed on or about

February 4, 2019; (i) Pit’s Consented Motion for Continuance of April 1, 2019 Hearing and

Leave of Court Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Defendants’ 1-4 Briefs in Support of Their

2-07-2019 MTD filed on March 28,2019; (j) Pit’s UnConsented Motion for Continuance of May

20, 2019 Hearing Until Sep 24, 2019 filed on or about May 8, 2019; (k) Pit’s Unconsented to

Rescind All Orders of Dismissal Based on the May 20,2019 Hearing and/or Grant Pit Leave of

Page 76 of 150

2 of 8

Judge Gwyn's Order Dismissing Appeal and Gatekeeping- Exhibt 6

Court to File Rule 15, Rule 52, Rule 54 and/or Rule 59 Motions Against Dismissal filed on June

25, 2019; (1) Pit’s Reply and relief from Judgment to Arthur Allen, Anthony Klish, SECU and

GAL Proposed Orders and Costs to May 2019 Hearing Dismissal filed on June 25, 2019; (m)

Pit’s Opposition/Reply; Opposition to SECU 2/7/19 Brief filed July 2, 2019; (n) Pit’s

Opposition/Reply to Harazin 2/7/19 Brief filed on July 2, 2019; and (o) Pit’s Opposition to

Arthur Allen Brief filed on July 8, 2019.

The following is a list of pleadings served by Plaintiff on Defendants after her

claims against all Defendants were dismissed and her post-dismissal motions denied: (a) Letter

Pit (KRA)’s Official Letter to Judge Collins for Ruling o/a 09-27-2019 for 09-23-2019 Hearing

filed on October 23, 2019; (b) Notice of Appeal filed on October 29, 2019; and (c) a purported

Lis Pendens action filed on or about December 6, 2019 raising the same claims against

Defendants that have already been dismissed by this Court.

During the pendency of this litigation, Plaintiff has emailed each defense counsel

approximately 100 times.

10.

Following the dismissal of this matter and following the dismissal of a Will

Caveat pursued by Plaintiff, on January 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in Fulton County,

Georgia against Arthur L. Allen and Anthony A. Klish alleging in substantial parts the same

claims she filed in this action.

11.

The above referenced pleadings filed by Plaintiff and the excessive emails to

defense counsel resulted in Defendants incurring considerable costs, resulted in unnecessary

delay and have been asserted without a basis in fact or law to harass Defendants and their

counsel.

Page 77 of 150

3 of 8

Judge Gwyn's Order Dismissing Appeal and Gatekeeping- Exhibt 6

12.

The claims contained in Plaintiffs filings with this Court are inappropriate, mot

well grounded, and not warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension,

modification, Or reversal of existing law.

13.

Plaintiff lacks a good faith basis for the pursuit of this litigation and has filed

numerous motions and duplicative documents in this Court. Her actions appear to be intended to

harass Defendants and increase the cost of litigation.

14.

Plaintiffs actions have burdened the Court and the parties involved.

15.

The Court has the inherent authority, and the obligation, to safeguard the judicial

process and to: (a) protect the fairness of the process for all citizens, and (b) to prevent abuse and

harassment of litigants and court officials affected by frivolous and groundless filings.

16.

A Gatekeeper Order may be entered to preserve the orderly and efficient

administration of justice when a lesser remedy is not available or likely to provide adequate

protection for litigants and court officials affected by frivolous and groundless filings.

17.

During the hearing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Appeal and for

Gatekeeping Order, Plaintiff was given a full and fair opportunity to present materials and make

arguments in support of her position and consistent with her constitutional and other legal rights.

Based on the foregoing FINDINGS OF FACT, the Court CONCLUDES AS A MATTER

OF LAW:

Plaintiff s failure to serve a proposed record on appeal in accordance with N.C. R.

App. P. Rule 11 is a substantial violation of the Rules of Appellate Procedure requiring dismissal

of her appeal.

Page 78 of 150

4 of 8

Judge Gwyn's Order Dismissing Appeal and Gatekeeping- Exhibt 6

Having considered and found no lesser remedy, the nature of Plaintiff s conduct

and the extraordinary circumstances of this matter require that the Court place special limitations

on Plaintiffs access to the Courts of Wake County and enter a Gatekeeper Order.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED:

Plaintiffs appeal is dismissed.

The Court grants Defendants’ Motion for a Gatekeeper Order on the following

terms and conditions and hereby enjoins Plaintiff from filing any further motion, pleading or

document related to the Matters (defined below) in any Wake County Court or any other Court in

North Carolina without the prior approval of the Court.

(a)

Plaintiff may submit a proposed motion, pleading or document to a lawyer

licensed to practice and in good standing in the State of North Carolina. If the lawyer

certifies, in writing, (1) that the lawyer has read and is familiar with this Order, (2) that

the lawyer has reviewed the document proposed for filing by Plaintiff, (3) that the lawyer

certifies that there is a legitimate basis for the filing, and (4) that the filing is not

frivolous, then the Clerk may accept such filing. In that circumstance, the Clerk shall file

the lawyer’s certification with the document filed by Plaintiff.

(b)

Plaintiff may submit a proposed motion, pleading or document to the senior

resident superior court judge of Wake County, or another judge delegated by the senior

resident superior court judge of Wake County to handle such matter, who may then

approve or disapprove of such filing. If such judge approves of the filing, the Clerk shall

file the judge’s confirmation along with the document filed by Plaintiff.

(c)

The “Matters” shall include:

Page 79 of 150

5 of 8

Judge Gwyn's Order Dismissing Appeal and Gatekeeping- Exhibt 6

(i)

Lawsuits against Arthur L. Allen, Anthony A. Klish (personally, and

including his former firm of Klish & Eldreth, PLLC and his current firm of Maginnis

Law, PLLC), State Employees’ Credit Union, Wake County Guardian ad litem and/or

William Harazin.

The actions or inactions of Arthur L. Alien in any way relating to the

Estate of Rebecca Bowden Allen Johnson (hereinafter “Decedent”), including but not

limited to, Arthur L. Allen’s role and performance of his duties as Personal Collector,

Administrator and/or Executor of Decedent’s Estate, Arthur L. Allen being a beneficiary

of and to Decedent’s Estate, and Arthur L. Allen’s ownership interest of any real property

located in Wake County, North Carolina that was formerly owned by Decedent.

(iii)

The actions or inactions of Anthony A. Klish, Klish & Eldreth, PLLC (of

which Anthony A. Klish formerly practiced law) and Maginnis Law, PLLC (of which

Anthony A. Klish currently practices law) in any way relating to their practice of law as it

relates to Decedent’s Estate.

(iv)

The actions or inactions of State Employees’ Credit Union in any way

relating to its Deed of Trust on property located at 2526 Poole Road, Raleigh, North

Carolina 27610, including, but not limited to any foreclosure proceeding that has

occurred in the past or that may occur in the future.

(v)

The actions or inactions of Wake County Guardian ad litem or William

Harazin in any way relating to their obligations arising from their sendee as a CourtAppointed Guardian ad Litem, including, but not limited to, carrying out the Guardian ad

Litem duties to represent the unknown heirs and the known heirs whose whereabouts is

Page 80 of 150

6 of 8

Judge Gwyn's Order Dismissing Appeal and Gatekeeping- Exhibt 6

unknown in any foreclosure proceeding that has occurred in the past or that may oceur in

the future.

(c)

A failure to comply with the Gatekeeper Order shall result in the dismissal or

striking of the pleading or document and the denial of the motion or motions.

Additionally, violation of the Gatekeeper Order by Plaintiff or anyone on her behalf shall

be considered in contempt and may be sanctioned accordingly.

(d)

Plaintiff is to attempt no further ex parte communications with the Wake County

Courts, except as to providing written notification to the Senior Resident Superior Court

Judge, in regard to filing, in accordance with the process described above.

(e)

This Gatekeeper Order shall remain in effect until vacated by the Court.

This the f

day of February 2020.

The Honorable Nathan Hunt Gwyn, Jr.

Superior Court Judge Presiding

Page 81 of 150

7 of 8

Judge Gwyn's Order Dismissing Appeal and Gatekeeping- Exhibt 6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served on the persons

indicated below via e-mail transmission and by depositing a copy thereof in the United States

Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:

Kathy R. Allen

26 55th Street NE

Washington, DC 20019-6770

Allenkll01@comcast.net

Plaintiff

Anthony A. Klish

Maginnis Law PLLC

4801 Glenwood Ave., Suite 310

Raleigh, NC 27612

anthony@maginnislaw.com

Counsel for Defendants

Cathleen M. Plaut

NCSECU

119 N. Salisbury Street, 11th Floor

Raleigh, NC 27603

Cathy.plaut@ncsecu.org

Counsel for Defendant NCSECU

William D. Harazin

William D. Harazin PLLC

1021 Vance Street

Raleigh, NC 27608

yyharazjn @ harazinia w.coirs

Counsel for Wake County Guardian ad Litem

This the I

day of February 2020.

mtm

tefifet. My|r^

Trial Court Administrator - 10th Judicial District

kellie.z.myers@nccourts.org

Page 82 of 150

8 of 8

EXHIBIT 7

Page 83 of 150

Judge Ridgeway's Order Denying filing Rule 59 Motion - Exhibit 7

FILED

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE

WAKE COUNTY

18 CVS 13119

:WAKE CO.,C.S.C.

KATHY R. ALLEN,

Plaintiff

ARTHUR L. ALLEN et al.

Defendants

)

ORDER

THIS MATTER came before the undersigned upon the request of the Plaintiff

to file a Rule 59 motion in the above-captioned matter. By order of this court,

Plaintiff is subject to a “gatekeeper” order that requires either (1) certification by a

lawyer licensed in North Carolina that there is a legitimate basis for filing said

motion and that it is not frivolous or (2) approval of the filing by the senior resident

superior court judge of Wake County.

On or about March 16, 2020, by e-mail, the plaintiff submitted a proposed

“Rule 59 Motion” challenging various portions of an order entered February 17,

2020 by the Honorable Nathan Hunt Gwyn, Jr. The undersigned, as senior resident

superior court judge of Wake County, has reviewed the pleadings submitted by the

plaintiff.

The Court concludes the “Rule 59 Motion” proposed by the plaintiff is

frivolous. In addition to failing to raise meritorious issues, a Rule 59 motion is not

a substitute for an appeal, and cannot be used to reargue matters already presented

or to set forth arguments that were not made but could have been asserted at the

trial court level.2 North Carolina Civil Procedure § 59-1 (2021); Sellers v. Ochs, 180

N.C. App. 332, 638 S.E.2d 1 (2006); Smith v. Johnson, 125 N.C. App. 603, 481

S.E.2d 415, cert, denied, 346 N.C. 283, 487 S.E.2d 554 (1997).

For the foregoing reasons, the request of the plaintiff to file the “Rule 59

Motion” is DENIED. The Plaintiff is reminded that the gatekeeper provisions of the

Order of February 17, 2020 remain in full force and effect.

This the 13th day of December, 2021.

•SOT

Paul C. Ridgeway

Senior Resident Superior Court Judge

Page 84 of 150

1 of 2

Judge Ridgeway's Order Denying filing Rule 59 Motion - Exhibit 7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served on the persons indicated

below by via e-mail transmission and by depositing a copy thereof in the United States Mail addressed

as follows:

Kathy R. Allen

26 55th Street NE

Washington, DC 20019-6770

Allenkil01@comcast.net

Plaintiff

Anthony A. Klish

MAGINNIS HOWARD

7706 Six Forks Rd., Ste. 101

Raleigh, NC 27615

anthony@maginnishoward.com

Counsel for Defendants

Cathleen Plaut

NCSECU

119 N. Salisbury St., 11th Floor

Raleigh, NC 27603

Cathy.plaut@ncsecu.org

Counsel for Defendant NCSECU

William D. Harazin

WILLIAM D. HARAZIN PLLC

1021 Vance Street

Raleigh, NC 27608

wh a ra zi n@ ha r a z)n la w, com

Counsel for Wake County Guardian ad Litem

Service is made upon local counsel for all attorneys who have been granted pro hac vice

admission, with the same effect as if personally made on a foreign attorney within this state.

This the 14th day of December 2021.

Kellie Z. Myers 5 f

Trial Court Administrator - 10th Judicial District

kellie.z.myers@nccourts.org

Page 8^ of 150

2 of 2

EXHIBIT 8

Page 86 of 150

Judge Ridgeway's Amended Order to add 01-14-2022 and 01-29-2020 Hearing's Order to Appeal - Exhibt 8

STATE OF NORTH CAI®I.Nft f g

WAKE COUNTY

GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE

SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION

16 E 001390

WAKE CQ.,C,S.C,

R¥

IN RE:

The Estate of REBECCA BOWDEN

ALLEN JOHNSON

KATHY R. ALLEN, Caveator

ARTHUR L. ALLEN, et al.

Propounders

)

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the undersigned upon KATHY R. ALLEN’s

request to file a motion, document or pleading in the above-captioned matters. Ms.

Allen is subject to a “gatekeeping order” in this matter entered on February 17,

2020 by the Honorable Nathan Hunt Gwyn, Jr., Superior Court Judge presiding,

that enjoins Ms. Allen from filing any further motion, pleading or document in

various matters (as defined in said order) unless a lawyer licensed to practice and in

good standing in the State of North Carolina certifies, in writing, (a) that the lawyer

has read and is familiar with the gatekeeping order, (b) that the lawyer has

reviewed the document proposed for filing by Ms. Allen, (c) that the lawyer certifies

that there is a legitimate basis for the filing, and (d) that the filing is not frivolous.

Alternatively, the gatekeeping order permits Ms. Allen to submit a proposed

motion, pleading or other document to the senior resident superior court judge of

Wake County, or his or her designee, who may then approve or disapprove of such

filing.

Ms. Allen has submitted to the senior resident superior court judge of Wake

County “Plaintiffs Notice of Appeal” by email dated January 11, 2022, a copy of

Page 87 of 150

1 of 3

Judge Ridgeway's Amended Order to add 01-14-2022 and 01-29-2020 Hearing's Order to Appeal - Exhibt 8

which is attached hereto as Attachment 1.

The undersigned DISALLOWS the

filing of this document pursuant to the terms of the February 17, 2020, Gatekeeping

Order. In reviewing the document, the Court concludes that while a notice of

appeal might appropriately be given by Ms. Allenin lACVS 13119 to the Ordered

the undersigned dated December 13. 2021 and to the order of Judge GWyn of

February 17, 2020, Ms. Allen has included in her proffered “notice of appeal” notices

pertaining to orders dated September 27, 2019, May 20, 2019, June 5, 2019, and

three orders dated June 12, 2021. As such>: a substantial portion of the proffered

pleading has no basis in law, is frivolous:and would continue to perpetuate the

pattern of misconduct barred by the February 17, 2020, Gatekeeping Order.

The

Clerk of Superior Court is directed to reject this filing if an attempt is made to fil e

it, and to inform the undersigned of any attempt to do so.

This Order shaUlb.&naade;a.p)af^<tf'|he-eo'ur:fe-.filn.i but does not constitute the

“filing” of the documents:attacheddiereto.

This the 18 January, 2022.

-I

”1

Paul C. Ridgeway,

Senior Resident Superior Court Judge

Page 88 of 150

2 of 3

EXHIBIT 9

Page 89 of 150

Judge Ridgeway's Amended Order to add 01-14-2022 and 01-29-2020 Hearing's Order to Appeal - Exhibt 9

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

WAKE COUNTY

KATHY R. ALLEN,

Plaintiff

ARTHUR L. ALLEN, et al,

IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE

SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION S

18 CVS 13119

18 SP 1746

17 SP 1397

16 E 1390

)

{•

rP.

•ri as

ORDER (amended to tn ^

include additional file ifQmUgLs)

THIS MATTER comes before the undersigned upon KATHY R. ALLEN’S