Volume 364 — North Carolina Reports

<bold>Appeal and Error — appealability — unfair and deceptive trade practices</bold> <bold>— final judgment on substantive issues — attorney fees remaining —</bold> <bold>certification</bold> <block_quote> A judgment ruling on all substantive issues of a claim under N.C.G.S. § <cross_reference>75-1.1</cross_reference> is final and appealable regardless of any unresolved request for attorney fees under N.C.G.S. § <cross_reference>75-16.1</cross_reference>. In appropriate cases, as here, such a final judgment may be certified for immediate appeal under Rule 54(b).</block_quote>

<bold>Possession of Stolen Property — felonious possession of stolen goods —</bold> <bold>acquittal of underlying breaking or entering and larceny charges</bold> <block_quote> The Court of Appeals erred by concluding a defendant may not be convicted of felonious possession of stolen goods even though defendant was acquitted of the underlying breaking or entering and larceny charges because: (1) although our Court of Appeals cited <italic>Perry</italic>, <cross_reference>305 N.C. 225</cross_reference> (1982), to support its determination, that decision was made in the context of felonious larceny and not felonious possession of stolen goods; (2) while a defendant may be convicted of felonious larceny if he committed the larceny pursuant to a breaking or entering under N.C.G.S. § <cross_reference>14-72</cross_reference>(b)(2), N.C.G.S. §§ <cross_reference>14-71.1</cross_reference>, -72(c) does not require that a defendant be guilty of a breaking or entering in order to be convicted of felonious possession of stolen goods, but instead must establish simply that defendant knew or had reasonable grounds to believe the goods were stolen pursuant to a breaking or entering; and (3) the jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant knew the goods had been stolen in violation of N.C.G.S. § <cross_reference>14-54</cross_reference> based upon defendant's own statements to a detective that the man who provided the stolen property to defendant had made a "score" from a barber shop.</block_quote>

<bold>Appeal and Error — interlocutory order — title to land — construction of</bold> <bold>will — failure to appeal — appeal not waived</bold> <block_quote> Plaintiffs did not forfeit their right to appeal by not taking an immediate appeal from an interlocutory order in an action involving the construction of a will and real estate. Although it was argued that an interlocutory order affecting title to land must be immediately appealed, the precedents involved condemnation cases or can be distinguished on procedural grounds.</block_quote>