dissenting in part.
I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority’s opinion upholding the imposition of sanctions upon defendants and their counsel for asserting the defense of contributory negligence in their answer. As the majority articulates, review of sanctions first requires us to determine the facial plausibility of defendants’ assertion of contributory negligence. Mack v. Moore, 107 N.C. App. 87, 91, 418 S.E.2d 685, 688 (1992). If their defense was not facially plausible, we then consider whether defendants (1) undertook a reasonable inquiry into the law and (2) based upon this inquiry, formed an objectively reasonable belief that the contributory negligence defense was warranted by existing law or an extension thereof. Id. I believe assertion of contributory negligence was facially plausible. The relevant statute does state, “A career employee who has been demoted or dismissed . . . who has not requested a hearing before the board of education pursuant to this section shall not be entitled to judicial review of the board’s action.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115C-325(n) (1999). At the time defendants asserted their defense, however, our courts had developed no case law construing or applying this provision. Defendants argued there should be judicially-created exceptions to this provision based upon “manifest unfairness,” such as when a client intended to request a hearing but his lawyer inadvertently failed to do so. Defendants also claimed that their belated petition for hearing preserved the right to judicial review and the statute thereby *287entitled them to a thirty-day period during which to exercise that right. Although these arguments ultimately proved unpersuasive, I cannot say that they were so facially implausible as to warrant the imposition of sanctions.
Furthermore, even if the defense was not facially plausible, I believe defendants undertook a reasonably sufficient inquiry and, based upon that inquiry, formed an objectively reasonable belief that the defense was warranted by existing law or an extension thereof. The trial court found that defendants did neither. However, there is no evidence in the record to support this finding. See Turner v. Duke University, 325 N.C. 152, 165, 381 S.E.2d 706, 714 (1989) (stating that de novo review of sanctions requires determining, among other things, whether the findings of fact are supported by sufficient evidence). This is a statute that had never been construed before. Accordingly, a reasonable inquiry could not have involved extensive research. Furthermore, at the time defendants asserted contributory negligence, the Board’s own attorney had instructed them via letter that they should try to petition for judicial review via section 115C-325(n), even though that statute states they were not entitled to judicial review at all because they failed to seek a hearing within fourteen days of receipt of the superintendent’s intended recommendation. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115c-325(h)(2)-(3), (n) (1999). This lends objective credence to defendants’ beliefs and illustrates their beliefs were not so unreasonable as to warrant the imposition of sanctions for asserting contributory negligence as a defense.
However, I do concur in the majority’s conclusion that imposition of sanctions for filing the third-party complaint was appropriate. I agree with the majority’s reasoning that third-party defendants’ letter clearly notified defendants they were involved in this matter solely for the purpose of plaintiffs’ breach of contract and legal malpractice claims — not for further legal assistance in restoring plaintiff’s job. I also concur with the majority’s opinion that the $2500 sanction based on insurance fees cannot stand.