Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs were the parents of Defendant's former husband, Tyson. Defendant and Tyson began living on a twenty-three-acre parcel of land owned by Plaintiffs in 1984. Defendant and Tyson made several improvements to eight acres of the property, including building a bridge and adding heat and running water to the house. Tyson moved away from the property in 2001. When Tyson began divorce proceedings in 2008, Plaintiffs demanded that Defendant vacate the property. Defendant refused to do so. In 2010, Plaintiffs successfully filed a complaint for summary ejectment against Defendant. Defendant appealed and counterclaimed to quiet title by way of adverse possession. After a jury trial, the trial court found in favor of Plaintiffs. The court of appeals affirmed. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in not instructing the jury that Defendant only possessed a portion of the twenty-three acre parcel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Defendant did not state in her pleading that she possessed just a portion of the disputed partial or present evidence implying that she sought adverse possession of anything less than the twenty-three acres, Defendant was not entitled to an instruction on adverse possession of a portion of the property. View "Minor v. Minor" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sold a parcel of land adjacent to a golf club to New South Properties (New South) for development as a residential community. New South hired Hunter Construction Group (Hunter) to prepare the parcel for construction. Hunter built erosion control structures and devices, including a silt collection basin. However, a dam Hunter constructed to form the silt collection basin ruptured, causing mud, water, and debris to flood the golf course. As a result of the damage to the golf course, Plaintiffs filed an action against New South, Apple Creek and Hunter, alleging negligence, nuisance, trespass, and violations of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act (SPCA). The trial court granted summary judgment to Defendants on the SPCA claim. Plaintiffs appealed and withdrew their appeal against all defendants except Hunter. The court of appeals affirmed. Without considering the merits of Plaintiffs' appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding that because Hunter was never cited for a violation for section 113A-66 of the SPCA, Plaintiffs did not have standing to bring a civil action against Hunter pursuant to section 113A-66. View "Applewood Props., LLC v. New S. Props., LLC" on Justia Law

In 2005, Tonya Bass executed an adjustable rate promissory note with Mortgage Lenders Network USA. The Note was then transferred several times: from Mortgage Lenders to Emax Financial Group, from Emax to Residential Funding Corporation, and from Residential Funding to U.S. Bank. The Note evidenced these transfers by three stamped imprints. In 2009, U.S. Bank filed this foreclosure action after Bass failed to make timely payments. The trial court dismissed the foreclosure action, concluding that because the Note was not properly indorsed and conveyed to Emax or Residential Funding, U.S. Bank was not the rightful holder of the Note. The court based its ruling that the first stamp was "unsigned" and failed to establish negotiation from Mortgage Lenders to Emax. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the indorsements on the Note unambiguously indicated the intent to transfer the Note from each preceding lender and finally to U.S. Bank; and (2) therefore, U.S. Bank was the holder of the Note and had the authority to bring this foreclosure action against Bass. View "In re Foreclosure of Bass" on Justia Law

A property owner sought a driveway permit from the State Department of Transportation (DOT) to connect its proposed subdivision's system of roads to a state road by which the property was accessed. Two railroad companies opposed the permit, claiming that the rail traffic at a nearby crossing, located approximately one-quarter of a mile away from the proposed driveway connection, might pose a safety hazard to future residents. Consequently, a DOT engineer denied the permit. On appeal, a DOT division engineer granted the permit request subject to the conditions that the owner make improvements to the railroad crossing and obtain the owning and operating railroads' consent to the improvements. On judicial review, the trial court ruled in favor of DOT, finding the agency acted within the scope of its powers in issuing the driveway permit subject to these conditions. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the conditions imposed by DOT in this case were not statutorily authorized, and therefore, DOT exceeded its authority when it issued the conditional permit. View "High Rock Lake Partners, LLC v. Dep't of Transp." on Justia Law

Respondents in this case were owners of a condominium unit, and Petitioner was the administrator and manager of the condominium. At issue in this case was whether the trial court erred in granting a judgment and dismissal in favor of Respondents, pursuant to N.C. R. Civ. P. 42, reasoning that Petitioner's lien and foreclosure claim against Respondents' condominium unit was invalid because it was based upon an improperly administered assessment and not a valid debt. The court of appeals vacated and remanded the matter to the trial court, concluding that Petitioner's assessment against Respondents' unit was unlawful, in that it was not uniform and not levied on a pro rata basis, but concluded further that Petitioner did have the authority to make the assessment against Respondents. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the decision of the court of appeals that Petitioner's assessment against Respondents' unit was unlawful because it was not applied uniformly nor calculated in accord with Respondents' percentage undivided interest in the common areas and facilities; and (2) held that the remaining issues addressed by the court of appeals were not properly before the Court. Remanded. View "In re Foreclosure of Johnson" on Justia Law

Janice Willis executed a general warranty deed reserving a life estate in her home for herself and conveying the remainder to her Eddie in fee simple. While Janice was still alive, Eddie died, and his interest passed to his children. Janice subsequently sought reformation of the deed based on unilateral mistake of the grantor in the absence of fraud. The trial judge granted a directed verdict for Defendants. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court modified and affirmed the decision of the court of appeals, holding that, under Crawford v. Willoughby and its progeny, reformation of a deed was unavailable as a remedy in this case. View "Willis v. Willis" on Justia Law