Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed in part the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the superior court dismissing Plaintiff's lawsuit against Defendants asserting claims under North Carolina's Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (UVTA), holding that remand was required for further proceedings.Defendants were co-principals in a joint real estate development venture with a party that intended to defraud creditors by way of the party's insider conveyance to Defendants of certain real property. In dismissing Plaintiff's UVTA lawsuit, the trial court concluded that Defendants were good faith purchasers for value and therefore possessed a legitimate defense against Plaintiffs' claims. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that Defendants were imputed with the knowledge of their co-principal's fraudulent intent by virtue of the principal-agent relationship existing between the parties pursuant to common law. View "Cherry Community Organization v. Sellars" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming in part and reversing in part a permanency planning order awarding legal guardianship of Mother's two minor children to Grandmother, holding that the court of appeals did not err.After a hearing, the trial court awarded guardianship of the two children to Grandmother, concluding that placement of the children with Mother would be contrary to their health, safety, welfare and best interest. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's decision that the best interest of the child supported an award of guardianship to Grandmother. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court's factual findings sufficed to support its conclusion that Mother had acted inconsistently with her constitutionally-protected right to parent her children; and (2) the trial court did not err in applying the best interest of the child standard in awarding guardianship of the children to Grandmother. View "In re B.R.W." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the order of the trial court dismissing Plaintiff's claims with prejudice and remanding the case to the trial court to give the parties an opportunity to gather and present evidence on a motion for summary judgment, holding that the trial court was not required to convert the motion to dismiss under N.C. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) to a motion for summary judgment.Plaintiff brought this action after being diagnosed with metastatic pancreatic cancer, arguing that Defendant swere negligent in failing to diagnose Plaintiff with cancer. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the action was barred by the three-year statute of limitations and four-year statute of repose in N.C. Gen. Stat. 1-15(c). The trial court dismissed the claims with prejudice. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the trial court should have converted the motion to dismiss to one for summary judgment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals erred by ruling that the trial court considered matters outside the pleading, thus converting the motion to a motion for summary judgment. View "Blue v. Bhiro" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the opinion and award of the North Carolina Industrial Commission denying Plaintiff relief on her claim for disability compensation from Defendants, holding that there was no error.On appeal, the court of appeals held that Plaintiff's claim was not time-barred under N.C. Gen. Stat. 97-24 and thus reversed the Commission's dismissal of Plaintiff's claim based on a 2014 injury. The court remanded the case to the Commission for a determination as to whether Plaintiff suffered a compensable injury under the Workers' Compensation Act. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiff's claim was not barred by section 97-24. View "Cunningham v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court modified the decision of the court of appeals, which held that the trial court lacked a sufficient factual basis to accept Defendant's guilty plea, holding that the trial court lacked a sufficient factual basis to accept Defendant's guilty plea but that the guilty plea must be accepted or rejected as a whole, not in part.The trial court sentenced Defendant to separate and consecutive sentences based on several assault charges arising from one assaultive episode. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the State did not provide a sufficient factual basis for the trial court to enter judgments on multiple assault charges. The court then remanded the case with instructions to arrest two lesser judgments and to repentance Defendant on the remaining charges. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding (1) the facts presented at the plea hearing did not establish that a distinct interruption occurred between assaults, and therefore, the court of appeals properly found that the trial court lacked a sufficient factual basis to accept Defendant's guilty plea; and (2) there was no basis for rejecting Defendant's guilty plea in part. View "State v. Robinson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his minor child, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.After a termination hearing, the trial court entered an order terminating Father's parental rights on grounds of neglect and willful failure to make reasonable progress, see N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1). The court further found that termination of Father's parental rights was in the child's best interests. On appeal, Father argued that the trial court's unchallenged findings did not fully support its adjudication of neglect as grounds for termination. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err by concluding that there was a likelihood of repetition of neglect and terminating Father's parental rights on this ground. View "In re K.Q." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals vacating Defendant's conviction for driving while impaired, holding that even if the admission of certain testimony was erroneous under N.C. R. Evid. 701, Defendant failed to meet his burden of showing that such assumed error was prejudicial.At issue was the testimony of Officer Henry Carssow, who responded at the scene of a moped accident in which Defendant was involved. Officer Carssow applied for a search warrant to obtain a sample of Defendant's blood to check his blood alcohol concentration. A magistrate executed and signed the application. After Defendant's blood was drawn he was charged and ultimately convicted of unlawfully and willfully operating a motor vehicle while subject to an impairing substance. The court of appeals vacated Defendant's conviction, ruling that the trial court committed prejudicial error by admitting Officer Carssow's lay witness opinion that Defendant was driving the moped at the time of the accident. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Officer Carssow's testimony was properly preserved for appeal; and (2) even if the admission of the testimony was erroneous, Defendant failed to show that such assumed error was prejudicial. View "State v. Delau" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his child, holding that the trial court did not err in finding past neglect or in determining that there was a likelihood of future neglect and that termination was in the child's best interests.After a termination hearing, the trial court adjudicated that a ground existed to terminate Father's parental rights for neglect and that terminating Father's parental rights was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) did not err when it adjudicated that a ground existed to terminate Father's parental rights under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1); and (2) did not abuse its discretion when it determined that the termination of Father's parental rights was in the child's best interests. View "In re C.S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights in his three children based on neglect and failure to show reasonable progress in correcting the conditions that led to the removal of the children from the home, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.After a termination hearing, the trial court determined that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1) and (2) and that it was in the children's best interests that Father's parental rights be terminated. On appeal, Father challenged the trial court's conclusion that it was in the children's best interests to terminate Father's parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no abuse of discretion in the court's determination that termination of Father's parental rights was in the children's best interests. View "In re A.N.D." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his minor child, Daniel, holding that there was no merit to Father's arguments on appeal.After a termination hearing, the trial court concluded that Father had neglected Daniel and that there was a substantial likelihood of repetition of neglect by Father. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1). The trial court further concluded that it was in Daniel's best interests that Father's parental rights be terminated. On appeal, Father challenged only the trial court's determination that there was a substantial likelihood of repetition of neglect if Daniel was returned to Father's care. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Father's argument was without merit. View "In re D.I.L." on Justia Law