Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The case involves a group of plaintiffs who claimed that the defendant, Bank of America, fraudulently denied them mortgage modifications under the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) and then foreclosed on their homes. The plaintiffs filed their complaint in May 2018 and their amended complaint in March 2019, alleging claims based on common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, intentional misrepresentation, promissory estoppel, conversion, unjust enrichment, unfair and deceptive trade practices, and, in the alternative, negligence.However, the Supreme Court of North Carolina found that the plaintiffs' claims were time-barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. The court held that the statutes of limitations for all of plaintiffs’ claims, except for their unfair and deceptive trade practices claim, started to run at the latest by the date that each plaintiff lost his or her home. Each plaintiff lost his or her home sometime between April 2011 and January 2014. Thus, the latest point in time any plaintiff could have filed a complaint was January 2017, or in the case of an unfair and deceptive trade practices claim, January 2018. Plaintiffs did not file their original complaint until May 2018. Therefore, their claims are time-barred.The court also rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the discovery rule tolled the statute of limitations for their fraud claims beyond the dates of their foreclosures. The court found that the plaintiffs were on notice of the defendant's alleged fraud by the time they lost their homes, and they should have investigated further. The court therefore reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint. View "Taylor v. Bank of America, N.A" on Justia Law

The case before the Supreme Court of North Carolina involved a dispute between The Society for the Historical Preservation of the Twentysixth North Carolina Troops, Inc. (plaintiff) and the City of Asheville (defendant). The controversy centered around a monument dedicated to Zebulon Vance, a former North Carolina Governor and Confederate Colonel. The plaintiff, a nonprofit historical preservation organization, raised funds to restore the monument and entered into a donation agreement with the City, whereby the monument was restored and then donated to the City. However, the City later decided to remove the monument, citing it as a public safety threat due to vandalism and threats of toppling.In response, the plaintiff filed a complaint against the City, alleging that the City breached the 2015 donation agreement and seeking a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and a declaratory judgment. The plaintiff argued that both parties had entered into a contract with the intent to preserve the monument in perpetuity. The City filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint for lack of standing and failure to state a claim. The trial court granted the City's motion, and this decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.When the case reached the Supreme Court of North Carolina, the court reversed the Court of Appeals’ determination that the plaintiff's breach of contract claim should be dismissed for lack of standing. However, the court noted that the plaintiff had abandoned the merits of its breach of contract claim in its appeal. As such, the court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's claims for a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and declaratory judgment for lack of standing. The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to assert any ground for which it has standing to contest the removal of the monument. View "Soc'y for the Hist. Pres. of the Twenty-sixth N.C. Troops, Inc. v. City of Asheville" on Justia Law

This case was brought before the Supreme Court of North Carolina to determine whether a person who files a motion to claim exempt property after a judgment is entered makes a general appearance in the action and thereby waives objections to the sufficiency of service of process and personal jurisdiction.The plaintiff, John Slattery, alleged that he was induced to invest $500,000 in a sham technology company, Appy City, by defendants Timothy Fields and Melissa Crete. Later, he named additional defendants, including Daisy Mae Barber, alleging they conspired to hide the invested funds by converting them into cryptocurrency. The Business Court entered default judgment against all defendants, including Barber, when they failed to respond to the complaint. Barber first appeared in the case when she filed a motion to claim exempt property. Later, she moved to set aside the entries of default and summary judgment, arguing the Business Court’s judgment was void for lack of personal jurisdiction as she had not been served with process nor appeared in the action before the entry of summary judgment.The Supreme Court of North Carolina held that when a defendant makes a general appearance in an action after the entry of a judgment, she waives any objections to the lack of personal jurisdiction or the sufficiency of service of process if she does not raise those objections at that time. Therefore, Barber, by filing a motion to claim exempt property, made a general appearance in the underlying action and did not raise her objections to personal jurisdiction or the sufficiency of service of process until over three months later. As a result, she waived these objections, and the Business Court’s judgment may be enforced. The decision of the Business Court was affirmed. View "Slattery v. Appy City, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of North Carolina was required to decide whether a trial court can refuse to hear oral testimony during a summary judgment hearing on the mistaken belief that the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure prohibit the receipt of such testimony. The plaintiff, a corporation, had sued the defendants for breach of a commercial lease, and the defendants counterclaimed for fraud. During the summary judgment hearing, the trial court declined a request by the defendants to introduce live testimony, asserting that it was not permitted during a summary judgment hearing. The defendants appealed, and the Court of Appeals vacated the trial court's summary judgment order and remanded the case, leading to this appeal.The Supreme Court of North Carolina held that a trial court errs if it fails to exercise its discretion under the misapprehension that it has no such discretion, referring to Rule 43(e) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure that allows for the introduction of live oral testimony during a summary judgment hearing at the discretion of the trial court. The court found that the trial court was mistaken in its belief that it could not allow oral testimony, and this error warranted vacatur and remand for reconsideration. The Supreme Court thereby modified and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals to vacate the trial court's summary judgment order and remand the case. View "D.V. Shah Corp. v. VroomBrands, LLC" on Justia Law

In this appeal from the orders and opinions entered in December 2019, February 2020, May 2020, and April 2021 by the superior court after the case was designated a mandatory complex business case, the Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that remand was required as to some issues.Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into an asset purchase agreement under which three software applications for use in the clinical trial process would be sold to Defendants by Plaintiffs in exchange for stock and $2.5 million. After the deal soured Plaintiffs brought this lawsuit asserting claims for, among other things, breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation. The trial court granted Defendants' motions to dismiss as to some claims and then granted summary judgment for Defendants on all remaining claims. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court as to all issues except for the order granting summary judgment on the issues of breach of portions of the asset purchase agreement, holding that further discovery was required. View "Value Health Solutions, Inc. v. Pharmaceutical Research Associates, Inc." on Justia Law

In this appeal from the business court judgment denying Defendant's motion for a protective order the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.Defendants - a corporate entity and the individual corporate members of that entity - were jointly represented by the same law firm. During a joint conference call with counsel, defendant Nicholas Hurysh secretly recorded the conversation. Hurysh later sought to waive the attorney-client privilege and disclose the contents of the conference call. The corporate entity moved for a protective order. The trial court denied the protective order, concluding that Hurysh held the attorney-client privilege individually and was permitted to waive it. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there existed a factual dispute concerning the scope of counsel's representation on the conference call, and the trial court correctly resolved the dispute in favor of Hurysh; and (2) the trial court's findings were supported by substantial evidence, and the trial court's ultimate determination was not an abuse of discretion. View "Howard v. IOMAXIS, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court granting Defendants' motion for an award of attorneys' fees as part of their costs under N.C. R. Civ. P. 41(d) pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 6-21.5 and the trial court's subsequent order awarding $599,262 in attorneys' fees as costs, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.Plaintiffs, limited partners of the Fayetteville Ambulatory Surgery Center Limited Partnership (FASC), asserted five claims against Cape Fear Valley Ambulatory Surgery Center, LLC and its owner, Cumberland County Hospital System, Inc. Plaintiffs later voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice. Defendants subsequently brought a motion for fees. The trial court granted the motion for attorneys' fees as part of Defendants' costs under Rule 41(d) pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 6-21.5. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion granting the motion for attorneys' fees. View "Woodcock v. Cumberland County System, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause allows North Carolina courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over companies that received millions of dollars in assets by E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company (Old DuPont) when the company, facing liability for releasing harmful chemicals into the North Carolina environment over a period of decades, underwent a significant corporate reorganization.North Carolina brought an action against Old DuPont and its corporate successors, asserting negligence, trespass, public nuisance, fraud, and fraudulent transfer related to Old DuPont's use of harmful chemicals at its Fayetteville Works plant and its subsequent reorganization to avoid liability. At issue was whether the Due Process Clause permits jurisdiction to be exercised over a corporate successor when the predecessor is subject to jurisdiction in the forum and state law subjects the successor to liability. The Supreme Court affirmed the business court's denial of Defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that personal jurisdiction could be established through the imputation analysis for all of the State's claims arising out of or related to Old DuPont's activities in North Carolina. View "State ex rel. Stein v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court in this complex business dispute, holding that neither party successfully demonstrated a substantial right that had been affected or that an error likely occurred at the trial court.Plaintiff brought this complaint seeking a declaratory judgment setting forth his rights under an Employment Agreement and Level Four Holdings Agreements. Plaintiff also alleged claims for tortious interference with a contract against Penta Mezzanine SIBC Fund I, L.P. (Penta Fund), Seth Ellis, and Level Four SBIC Holdings. The trial court (1) determined it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's declaratory judgment claim; (2) dismissed the tortious interference with contract claim against all defendants; and (3) denied motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction by Level Four Holdings and Ellis. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below. View "Button v. Level Four Orthotics & Prosthetics, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the business court determining the fair value of shares held by shareholders in Reynolds American Inc. (RAI), holding that the dissenters' challenges to the business court's judgment were without merit.RAI sought judicial appraisal after it was acquired by British American Tobacco. The business court determined that the $59.64 per share plus interest RAI paid the dissenters after they notified RAI of their intent to seek judicial appraisal equaled or exceeded the fair value of RAI shares as of the date of the merger and that no further payments to the dissenters was required. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the business court correctly concluded that the dissenters were paid fair value for their shares. View "Reynolds Am. Inc. v. Third Motion Equities Master Fund Ltd." on Justia Law