Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this case involving the extent of a a trustee's duties and powers concerning litigation challenging trust amendments the Supreme Court held that the subject trustee had the power to defend the litigation and that the court of appeals erred by applying N.C. Gen. Stat. 31-36, a statute applicable to will caveats, to this trust proceeding.Plaintiffs brought this litigation seeking to set aside certain amendments to a Trust created by the decedent. Plaintiffs sought relief against the trustee, Goldman Sachs Trust Co., N.A., for what they claimed were invalid distributions to defendant beneficiaries. Defendant beneficiaries sought an order directing Goldman Sachs to pay them the costs of defending the Trust, after which one plaintiff filed a motion to "Freeze Administration of Revocable Trust Until Beneficiaries Are Determined or...to Pay Defense Costs for All Purported Beneficiaries." The trial court granted the motions to pay. The court of appeals reversed and remanded to the trial court for entry of an order allowing the motion to freeze. The Supreme Court held (1) the trial court did not err by instructing Goldman Sachs to pay defendant beneficaries' litigation expenses as distributions in this action; and (2) a duty to defend under N.C. Gen. Stat. 36C-8-811 arises only when the action may result in a loss to the trust estate. View "Wing v. Goldman Sachs Trust Co., N.A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the court of appeals affirming the order of the trial court denying Nation Ford Baptist Church Inc.'s (Church) motion to dismiss the underlying complaint with respect to Pastor Phillip R.J. Davis's claim for a declaratory judgment, holding that certain claims must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.Pastor Davis filed a complaint against the Church and Nation Ford's Board of Directors, arguing that the Board exceeded its authority under the Church's corporate bylaws when it purported to terminate him by vote of the Board because the governing bylaws allowed termination only by vote of the Church's congregation at a special general meeting. The trial court denied the Church's motion to dismiss, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) Pastor Davis's claim for a declaratory judgment regarding the various bylaws can proceed; and (2) First Amendment principles required the dismissal of Pastor Davis's other claims. View "Nation Ford Baptist Church, Inc. v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the trial court's denial of Harnett Health Systems, Inc.'s motion to dismiss this medical malpractice complaint for failure to comply with Rule 9(j) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, holding that there was no error.Plaintiff filed a medical malpractice complaint as the administrator of her husband's estate, alleging that Harnett Health violated the standard of care applicable to her husband at the time he was treated for renal failure. Plaintiff identified as an expert witness Dr. Gary Harris. Harnett Health moved to disqualify and exclude Dr. Harris on the grounds that he did not qualify as a standard of care expert under N.C. R. Evid. 702. The trial court granted the motion and then entered summary judgment in favor of Harnett Health. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that Plaintiff reasonably believed her Rule 9(j) expert witness was willing to testify that Harnett Health violated the standard of care in the ways alleged in her complaint; and (2) the court of appeals utilized the correct standard of review in examining the trial court's grant of Harnett Health's motion to exclude another witness. View "Miller v. Carolina Coast Emergency Physicians, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals that reversed the order of the trial court declaring void two challenged amendments to the North Carolina Constitution, holding that the trial court should have considered whether invalidating both the Voter ID Amendment and the Tax Cap Amendment was necessary "upon balances the equities" of the situation.In the week of the final regular legislative session preceding the 2018 general election a General Assembly composed of legislators elected from districts that the United States Supreme Court determined to have resulted from unconstitutional racial gerrymandering enacted legislation presenting constitutional amendments that were ultimately ratified by a majority of voters. At issue were Session Law 2018-119 (the Tax Cap Amendment) and Session Law 2018-128 (the Voter ID Amendment). The Supreme Court held (1) N.C. Const. Art, I, 2-3 imposes limits on the authority of legislators electors due to unconstitutional racial gerrymandering to alter the constitution; but (2) the trial court's order invalidating the two challenged amendments swept too broadly, such that remand was required. View "N.C. NAACP v. Moore" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court modified and affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming an order of the superior court resentencing Defendant on his first-degree murder conviction to life with the possibility of parole after twenty-five years and running his first-degree kidnapping sentence consecutively with his murder sentence, holding that Defendant failed to show prejudice.Defendant filed a motion for appropriate relief seeking sentencing under Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012). The trial court allowed the motion and resentenced Defendant. On appeal, the court of appeals rejected Defendant's claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding (1) the reasoning below is rejected to the extent it incorrectly suggested that the resentencing court lacked authority to run Defendant's first-degree murder sentence concurrently with his robbery with a dangerous weapon sentences; and (2) the court of appeals correctly concluded that Defendant could not demonstrate prejudice. View "State v. Oglesby" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the opinion rendered by the court of appeals affirming the trial court's judgment entered upon the jury's verdict in favor of Defendants in this medical malpractice case, holding that it is appropriate to overrule Byrd v. Marion General Hospital, 202 N.C. 337 (1932), as it is applied to the facts of this case.During the preparation of an "ablation procedure" on three-year-old Amaya Gullatte's heart and shortly after she was induced with the anesthetic sevorflurance Amaya went into cardiac arrest, resulting in the onset of permanent brain damage, cerebral palsy, and profound developmental delay. During trial, the court excluded evidence offered by Plaintiffs intended to show that Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist Gus Vansoestbergen breached the professional duty of care governing his participation in the preparation and administration of the course of anesthesia. The ruling was dictated by the application of the principle set forth in Byrd establishing that nurses categorically do not owe a duty of care under the circumstances of this case. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of Defendants. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's exclusion of Plaintiffs' expert testimony, holding that it is appropriate to overrule Byrd as it is applied to the facts of this case. View "Connette v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the trial court granting the motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by defendant Harnett County and dismissing the claims brought by plaintiff PF Development Group and all but one of the claims asserted by the remaining plaintiffs, holding that remand was required.At issue in this case was an ordinance adopted by the County that required residential property developers to pay one-time water and sewer capacity use fees associated with the lots they planned to develop as a precondition for obtaining the County's concurrence in the developer's application for the issuance of required water and sewer permits. In seeking relief from the trial court's orders, Plaintiffs argued on appeal that genuine issues of material fact existed. The court of appeals disagreed and affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the "capacity use" fees at issue were "monetary exactions" subject to constitutional scrutiny and therefore must satisfy the "essential nexus" and "rough proportionality" test to avoid being treated as takings of Plaintiffs' property. View "Anderson Creek Partners, L.P. v. County of Harnett" 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 vacated the orders of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights in her three children, holding that the trial court failed to make necessary determinations to support the adjudication of grounds for termination under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1) and (2).After a hearing, the trial court terminated Mother's parental rights based on neglect and failure to show reasonable progress in correcting the conditions which led to the removal of the children from the home. On appeal, Mother argued that the trial court failed to make certain necessary determinations regarding both grounds for termination. The Supreme Court agreed and vacated the judgment, holding that the trial court failed to make the necessary determinations on adjudication under sections 7B-1111(a)(1) and (2). View "In re M.B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights in her two minor children, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the proceedings below.The Henderson County Department of Social Services filed a motion to terminate Mother's parental rights in her two children based on neglect and failure to make reasonable progress. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(2). After the first termination hearing was continued, Mother's counsel requested a continuance at the beginning of the hearing. The trial court denied the motion and then terminated Mother's parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mother's motion for a continuance of the termination hearing; and (2) Mother's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was without merit. View "In re A.M.C." on Justia Law