Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court terminating Parents' parental rights to their three children, holding that Father was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.Following four hearings, the trial court entered an order terminating Parents' parental rights to all three children, adjudicating the existence of grounds under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(3), (5), and (7) and concluding that it was in the children's best interests that Parents' parental rights be terminated. Father appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that it was in the children's best interests to terminate Parents' parental rights in their children. View "In re M.R." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and remanded in part a permanency planning order of the trial court eliminating reunification as a permanent plan, holding that remand was required.Father appealed from an order of the trial court ceasing reunification efforts with his two songs, the permanency planning order eliminating reunification as a permanent plan, and subsequent orders terminating his parental rights. The Supreme Court remanded the case in part, holding (1) because the permanency planning order lacked findings that addressed one of the four issues contemplated N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-906.2(d) remand was necessary for entry of additional findings; (2) Father's claim of error concerning the permanency planning order was properly resolved by remand and did not necessitate vacating or reversing the order, and therefore, it was premature for the Supreme Court to consider the trial court's orders terminating Father's parental rights. View "In re C.H." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her three minor children, holding that the trial court's adjudication of neglect was supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence.The Robeson County Department of Social Services filed a petition to terminate Mother's parental rights to her three children under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(3). After a hearing, the trial court granted the petition and found that it was in the children's best interests that Mother's parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly exercised subject matter jurisdiction and did not err in determining the existence of grounds to terminate Mother's parental rights on the basis of neglect. View "In re J.D.O." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court dismissing Mother's petition seeking to have the parental rights of Father to the parties' three children terminated, holding that the trial court did not err in dismissing Mother's petition.Mother filed a termination petition alleging that Father's parental rights in the children were subject to termination on the grounds of willful abandonment set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(7). The trial court dismissed the petition, concluding that Mother had failed to establish that Father had willfully abandoned the children. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence supported the trial court's conclusion that Father had not willfully abandoned the juveniles. View "In re N.W." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating the parental rights of Parents to their minor children, holding that the arguments Parents raised on appeal were meritless.After a hearing over the span of seven dates, the trial court entered an order determining that the parental rights of both Mother and Father were subject to termination under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1) and (2). The court then concluded that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the best interest of three of the four children at issue and that termination of Father's parental rights was in the best interests of all four children. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion in the proceedings below. View "In re B.E." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order entered by the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights in her daughter, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion in the proceedings below.The Cabarrus County Department of Human Services filed a motion alleging that Mother's parental rights in her daughter were subject to termination based upon neglect, willful failure to make reasonable progress, willful failure to pay a reasonable portion of the cost of the child's care while outside her custody, and dependency. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(3), (6). Following a hearing, the trial court entered an order concluding that Mother's parental rights in her daughter were subject to termination on the basis of each of the grounds alleged in the termination motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in concluding that Mother's parental rights were subject to termination on the basis of neglect and that termination of Mother's parental rights would be in the child's best interests. View "In re R.L.R." on Justia Law