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

This case revolves around a promotional flyer from a car dealership that led plaintiffs to believe they had won a major prize. Instead, they received a minor prize, leading them to file a class action lawsuit alleging deception. The trial court certified the case as a class action, but the defendants appealed. The Supreme Court of North Carolina found the trial court's certification order internally inconsistent as it used one class definition in its analysis and another when certifying the class.The plaintiffs had brought their claim on behalf of all individuals who received a contest flyer and went to the dealership to claim their prize. However, the trial court's analysis of the certification criteria was based on a narrower definition of the class, specifically those who both called the dealership's hotline and visited the dealership. This inconsistency led the Supreme Court to vacate the order and remand for further proceedings.The Supreme Court further directed the trial court to examine potential conflicts of interest within the class and assess the potential for inefficiencies that could render class certification inappropriate. It emphasized that the class members' potential recovery must exceed the costs of administering a class action for certification to be warranted. View "Surgeon v. TKO Shelby, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs obtained loans from Defendant, a bank. Plaintiffs later, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, filed a complaint alleging that Defendant's loan transactions violated North Carolina's unfair and deceptive practices statute. Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that they paid loan discount fees but did not receive discounted loans and that the fees they were charged in connection with origination of their loans were unnecessary and unreasonable. The trial court granted partial summary judgment for Plaintiffs on their loan discount claims and excessive pricing claims under N.C. Gen. Stat. 75-1.1. The court of appeals affirmed entry of summary judgment on Plaintiffs' loan discount claims but reversed the grant of summary judgment on the excessive fees claims. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) issues of material fact existed in regards to Plaintiffs' loan discount claims; and (2) Plaintiffs' excessive pricing claims were not recognized by section 75-1.1. Remanded. View "Bumpers v. Cmty. Bank of N. Va." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, medical center, sued Defendant, former patient, seeking to recover the value of medical services Plaintiff provided Defendant while he was admitted to its medical center. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment against Defendant in the amount of $14,419 for the medical care he had received, supporting its contention it should receive that amount by submitting several affidavits. The trial court entered summary judgment for Plaintiff on the issue of damages. The court of appeals reversed, stating that although Defendant did not contest liability, an issue of material fact remained on the amount owed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the medical center's affidavits from its employees that stated the amount of its bill and asserted the amount was reasonable were minimally sufficient of its right to payment; and (2) the patient's affidavit illustrating the differences between the retail price of, and the amount charged by the medical center for, certain medications failed to show that an issue of material fact remained for trial. View "Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hosp. Auth. v Talford" on Justia Law

In this appeal the Supreme Court considered whether the clerk of superior court had the authority to determine the reasonableness of attorney's fees that a trustee-attorney in a foreclosure proceeding paid to himself in addition to his trustee's commission. The superior court affirmed the clerk's order. The court of appeals vacated the clerk's and trial court's orders, holding that the clerk lacked the statutory authority to determine the reasonableness of attorney's fees paid in a foreclosure proceeding. The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals, holding (1) the clerk exceeded his statutory authority by reducing the trustee-attorney's attorney's fees, and (2) absent a viable challenge for breach of fiduciary duty from a creditor with standing, the trustee-attorney's payment of attorney's fees to himself in addition to a trustee's commission could not be upset. View "In re Foreclosure of Vogler Realty, Inc." on Justia Law