Volume 79 — North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports

Fraudulent Conveyances 3.4 — issue as to fraudulent intent — summary judgment improper The trial court erred in entering summary judgment for plaintiff on its claim for an amount for hospital care rendered to defendants' mother and on its claim that a conveyance to defendants from their mother was fraudulent and therefore void as against plaintiff, since there were genuine issues of material fact as to an exact amount owed by defendants and as to whether defendants' mother transferred her property with intent to defraud.

1. Eminent Domain 13 — applicability of N.C.G.S. Ch. 40A to private landowners Even though private landowners are not specifically mentioned in N.C.G.S. <cross_reference>40A-3</cross_reference>, they are bound by the provisions of Ch. 40A. 2. Eminent Domain 13 — inverse condemnation No general common law right of action for inverse condemnation exists where there is no underlying statutory condemnation authority. 3. Aviation 2; Eminent Domain 13 — airplane overflights — inverse condemnation — procedure provided by N.C.G.S. <cross_reference>40A-51</cross_reference> N.C.G.S. <cross_reference>40A-51</cross_reference> provides the sole procedure by which plaintiffs may bring an inverse condemnation action against a city for the alleged taking of their land resulting from the city's operation of its airport. 4. Aviation 2; Eminent Domain 13 — airplane overflights — inverse condemnation action — N.C.G.S. Ch. 40A — different procedures not allowed by city charter A city charter amendment permitting a city to use the provisions of N.C.G.S. Ch. 136 to exercise its power of eminent domain did not give plaintiff landowners the right to use procedures other than those set forth in N.C.G.S. Ch. 40A in bringing an inverse condemnation action against the city based on airplane overflights. 5. Limitation of Actions 4; Aviation 2; Eminent Domain 13 — inverse condemnation — enactment of statute of limitations — constitutionality of grace period A grace period of five months and three weeks between enactment of the two-year statute of limitations of N.C.G.S. <cross_reference>40A-51</cross_reference> for inverse condemnation actions and the effective date of the statute afforded landowners a reasonable time within which to bring an action on an existing inverse condemnation claim so as to comply with due process. 6. Aviation 2; Eminent Domain 13 — inverse condemnation — claim barred by statute of limitations Plaintiffs' claim filed on 23 November 1983 for inverse condemnation allegedly resulting from defendant city's opening of a new airport runway on 19 June 1979 was barred by the two-year statute of limitations of N.C.G.S. <cross_reference>40A-51</cross_reference>. 7. Aviation 2 — inverse condemnation — flight easement — additions taking from increased air traffic Once a flight easement has been established, a further compensable taking may occur upon increases in operations or introduction of new<page_number>Page 518</page_number> aircraft within the easement acquired with consequent decreases in land values significantly beyond the diminution resulting from the initial taking. 8. Rules of Civil Procedure 12 — failure to state claim for relief — allowance of motion to dismiss A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for relief generally should not be allowed unless the pleadings disclose the absence of facts sufficient to make a good claim or some other insurmountable bar to recovery. 9. Aviation 2; Eminent Domain 13 — inverse condemnation action — allegation of date of taking The requirement of N.C.G.S. <cross_reference>40A-51</cross_reference> that a plaintiff in an inverse condemnation action state the dates of the alleged taking does not impose any stringent standard of specificity. 10. Aviation 2; Eminent Domain 13 — inverse condemnation — increase in air traffic — date of taking — remand for more definite statement Plaintiffs' complaint in an inverse condemnation action alleging the taking of a further flight easement "within the past two years" resulting from increased air traffic failed to allege with reasonable specificity when the alleged taking occurred. However, the complaint will not be dismissed but the cause will be remanded to permit plaintiffs to respond to defendant's motion under N.C.G.S. <cross_reference>1A-1</cross_reference>, Rule 12 (e) for a more definite statement.