Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part an order of the court of appeals in this jurisdictional dispute, holding that the Corporate Defendants intentionally reached out to North Carolina to conduct business activities in the state, and the claims at issue in this case arose from or were related to those activities.After Plaintiff was officially terminated from his employment he brought an action against Individual and Corporate Defendants alleging, inter alia, fraud, misrepresentation, and breach of contract. Defendants moved to dismiss the action. The trial court denied the motions. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the Corporate Defendants' activities alone were not sufficient to establish specific jurisdiction and that Plaintiff's claims did not arise out of, or even relate to, the alleged contacts between Defendants and North Carolina. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' decision as to Corporate Defendants, affirmed with respect to Individual Defendants, and remanded, holding that the trial court may exercise personal jurisdiction over Corporate Defendants pursuant to the Due Process Clause. View "Schaeffer v. SingleCare Holdings, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the opinion of the court of appeals affirming the trial court's entry of summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and holding that eight of nine restrictive covenants governing Plaintiffs' lots within the parties' residential subdivision were extinguished by operation of North Carolina's Real Property Marketable Title Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. 47B-1 to 47B-9, holding that the eight covenants were extinguished by operation of law.At issue on appeal was whether the court of appeals correctly determined that the Act's thirteenth enumerated exception did not apply to save all of the nine restrictive covenants in question. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the court of appeals correctly held that all but one of the restrictive covenants, as applied to Plaintiffs' property, were to be extinguished under the Act; and (2) a plain reading of section 47B-3(13) exempts from extinguishment only those covenants that actually require that a property be used residentially within the confines of a general or uniform scheme of development. View "C Investments 2, LLC v. Auger" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the Town of Weddington was protected from Providence Volunteer Fire Department, Inc.'s fraud-related claims based upon the doctrine of governmental immunity and that Mayor Deter was protected from those claims based upon the doctrine of legislative immunity, and therefore, the trial court erred by failing to dismiss Providence's fraud-related claims.The Town entered into three contracts with Providence in order to procure fire protection services for its residents, renovate its fire station, and purchase and lease the fire station back to Providence. Substantial improvements were subsequently made to Providence's fire station, and the Town then obtained a quitclaim deed to the property. Thereafter, the Town voted to terminate the lease with Providence. Providence filed a complaint asserting various forms of relief. The trial court denied the Town's motion to dismiss. The court of appeals reversed, ruling that Providence's fraud-related claims were barred by governmental and legislative immunity. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals did not err in deciding that (1) the Town was shielded from Providence's fraud-related claims on the basis of governmental immunity; and (2) Mayor Deter was shielded from Providence's fraud-related claims on the basis of legislative immunity. View "Providence Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. v. Town of Weddington" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court denying Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction this breach of contract matter, holding that the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.Plaintiff, which was based in Durham, North Carolina, brought this action against Defendant, a California company, after Defendant allegedly refused to pay certain fees as required by the parties' agreement and terminated the agreement without cause. The trial court denied Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that Defendant had the requisite minimum contacts with the forum. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the maintenance of this suit did not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. View "Toshiba Global Commerce Solutions, Inc. v. Smart & Final Stores LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the order of the district court concluding that Plaintiff was entitled to "reasonable attorney's fees" on appeal from a decision of the magistrate in Plaintiff's favor, holding that there was no error.The trial court awarded the attorney's fees at issue in this action seeking the recovery of money Defendant owed Plaintiff under a contract to purchase real estate that obligated Defendant, the buyer, to pay Plaintiff, the seller, a due diligence fee and an earnest money deposit. The court of appeals affirmed the attorney's fee award. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant's allegations of error were unavailing. View "Reynolds-Douglass v. Terhark" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the court of appeals affirming in part and reversing in part the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants and dismissing Plaintiffs' claims for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, unfair and deceptive trade practices, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and breach of fiduciary duty, holding that a trial was required as to certain claims.This case arose from a dispute surrounding the purchase of an oceanfront beach house by Plaintiffs. When Plaintiffs later discovered significant structural damages to the house arising from past water intrusion Plaintiffs brought this complaint. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants. The trial court reversed in part and remanded the case for a trial on the merits on certain claims, holding that the court of appeals (1) correctly held that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment with respect to Plaintiffs' claims of negligence and fraud against Re/Max Community Brokers and Robert Carroll; and (2) erred by reversing the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Rudd & Associates, Inc., Brooke Rudd-Gaglie, and James Goodman as to Plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary claim. View "Cummings v. Carroll" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeal reversing the judgment of the trial court in favor Plaintiff on its claim for breach of contract, holding that the court of appeals did not err by reversing and remanding the case back to the trial court with instructions to make findings of fact and to enter clear and specific conclusions of law based on the findings of fact.On appeal, the court of appeals held that the trial court failed to make findings of fact necessary to resolve conflicts in the evidence and support conclusions of law. The court reversed and remanded the trial court's judgment and remanded with instructions to make ultimate findings of fact based on the evidence and to enter clear and specific conclusions of law based on the findings of fact. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals did not err. View "Carolina Mulching Co. v. Raleigh-Wilmington Investors II, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme held that the trial court did not err in determining that Defendants were not afforded underinsured motorist and medical payments coverage under an insurance policy issued by Plaintiff, an insurance company, to a family member.Defendants argued that they were entitled to medical payments and underinsured motorist coverage under Plaintiff's policy because they were "residents" of the insured's "household." Plaintiff disputed coverage and filed a declaratory judgment action in superior court, arguing that Defendants were not residents of the insured's household at the time of the accident. The trial court entered summary judgment for Plaintiff, concluding as a matter of law that Defendants were not entitled to coverage under the policy. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals did not err in determining that Defendants are not entitled to coverage under the policy and that the trial court appropriately awarded summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff. View "N.C. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co., Inc. v. Martin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Business Court granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants, holding that the Business Court properly determined that North Carolina's economic loss rule requires negligence claims to be based upon the violation of an extra-contractual duty imposed by operation of law.At issue was whether a commercial property owner who contracts for the construction of a building may seek to recover in tort for its economic loss from a subcontracted manufacturer of building materials with whom the property owner does not have contractual privity. Applying the economic loss rule irrespective of the existence or lack of a contractual relationship between the property owner and the subcontracted manufacturer, the court dismissed Plaintiff's negligence claim with prejudice. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that purely economic losses are not recoverable under tort law, particularly in the context of commercial transactions. View "Crescent University City Venture, LLC v. Trussway Manufacturing, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court modified and affirmed the decision of the Business Court dismissing Defendant's crossclaims against a co-defendant, holding that the Business Court correctly dismissed the crossclaims.This appeal arose from litigation between Kenneth Nelson, Alliance Hospitality Management, LLC, and Orlando Residence, Ltd. Orlando filed this lawsuit against Alliance and Nelson seeking recovery of funds that Alliance allegedly wrongfully transferred. Nelson, appearing pro se, filed a document in which he asserted eighteen crossclaims against Alliance seeking damages and various forms of equitable relief. The Business Court dismissed the claims asserted by Orlando and all of Nelson's crossclaims. Nelson appealed, arguing that the Business Court incorrectly ruled that a crossclaim asserted by one defendant against a co-defendant automatically ceases to be viable once the plaintiff's original claims against the defendants are dismissed. The Supreme Court agreed, holding (1) with the exception of certain crossclaims, the dismissal of the original action does not, by itself, mandate the dismissal of a crossclaim so long as the crossclaim meets the Rule 13(g) prerequisites for bringing such a claim; and (2) because res judicata barred Nelson's "qualifying claims," the dismissal of Nelson's remaining fifteen crossclaims was proper. View "Orlando Residence, Ltd. v. Alliance Hospitality Management, LLC" on Justia Law