 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] Northfield Development Co.3/4/2003
ciency of service of process. Unlike defendant in Storey, the City did not engage in any conduct that could reasonably have led plaintiff to believe that service of process was sufficient, depriving plaintiff of the opportunity to cure any defect. On the contrary, the City's motion should have put plaintiff on notice that the City was assessing the viability of any and all possible defenses, particularly those arising under Rule 12. Therefore, plaintiff's reliance on Storey is misplaced.
We are also unpersuaded by plaintiff's argument that Thompson's apparent authority to accept service of process on behalf of the City provides a basis for estoppel in this case. "'Persons dealing with a municipal corporation are charged with notice of all limitations upon the authority of its officers representing them . . . .' This is because the scope of such authority is a matter of public record." L&S;Leasing, Inc. v. City of Winston-Salem, 122 N.C. App. 619, 622, 471 S.E.2d 118, 121 (1996)(citation omitted).
Accordingly, the decision of the trial court is affirmed.
Affirmed. Judges McCULLOUGH and STEELMAN concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
|