Justia North Carolina Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court held that North Carolina charter schools are not state agencies and are, consequently, precluded from asserting a defense of sovereign immunity, and charter schools are not "persons" as defined in N.C. Gen. Stat. 1-607.The State pled claims under the False Claims Act against a non-profit corporation that operated as a charter school (the Academy) and a corporate officer. The Academy filed a motion to dismiss the False Claims Act claim, which the trial court denied. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the Academy was entitled to sovereign immunity and that it did not qualify as a "person" for purposes of the False Claims Act. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the court of appeal erred by concluding that charter schools are entitled to a defense of sovereign immunity and are not "persons" for purposes of the Act; and (2) the State adequately stated a claim for relief against the Academy and its officer under the Act. View "State v. Kinston Charter Academy" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father in their daughter, holding that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion.After a hearing, the trial court entered an order concluding that both parents' parental rights in the child were subject to termination on the basis of neglect and failure to make reasonable progress, N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(2), and that Father's parental rights were subject to termination for failure to pay a reasonable portion of the child's cost of care, N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(3). The trial court further concluded that termination was in the child's best interests. The Supreme Court, held that the termination motion in this case substantially complied with the verification requirement in N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1104 and sufficed to give the trial court subject matter jurisdiction to terminate the parents' parental rights in the child. View "In re C.N.R." 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 orders of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights in her child, holding that the findings of fact contained in the trial court's termination orders had ample record support and that the court did not otherwise err.After a hearing, the trial court entered an adjudication order finding that Mother's parental rights in her child were subject to termination on the basis of neglect and failure to make reasonable progress. See N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(2). The trial court further concluded that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the child's best interests. On appeal, Mother's counsel filed a no-merit brief on Mother's behalf. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in determining that Mother's parental rights were subject to termination and that the termination of her parental rights was in the child's best interests. View "In re S.G.S" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming an order of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of Insureds and against Insurer in reliance upon its prior decision in N.C. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. Gurley, 139 N.C. App. 178 (2000), holding that the lower courts erred.Matthew Bronson, who was intoxicated, collided with a vehicle owned by Pamela Dana, resulting in serious injuries to Pamela and William Dana, who was riding in the passenger seat. Pamela died from her injuries. At the time of the accident, Pamela was insured under a policy of automobile liability insurance issued by Insurer. William, individually and as administrator of Pamela's estate, claimed to be entitled to an additional $74,750 in underinsured motorist coverage over the amount that Insurer had already tendered to them. Insurer filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment regarding the amount of underinsured motorist coverage it was required to provide to the Danas. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the Danas, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the application of Gurley in this case was error. View "N.C. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. Dana" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her three children, holding that the issues identified by counsel in Mother's brief as arguably supporting Mother's appeal were meritless.The trial court concluded that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights on the grounds set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1), (2), (3), (6), and (7). The court further determined that it was in the children's best interests that Mother's parental rights be terminated. On appeal, counsel filed a no-merit brief on his client's behalf, conceding that he could muster no non-frivolous argument on appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's order was supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence and based on proper legal grounds. View "In re T.I.S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court terminating Mother's parental rights, holding that the district court did not err.After a hearing, the trial court entered an order concluding that grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights based on neglect and failure to make reasonable progress. The court further concluded that it was in the child's best interest that Mother's parental rights be terminated. On appeal, Mother challenged several of the trial court's findings of fact and its conclusions of law. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) competent evidence supported the challenged findings of fact; and (2) the trial court's findings of fact supported its conclusion that a ground existed to terminate Mother's parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1). View "In re A.L.A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his son, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.After a hearing, the trial court entered an order determining that grounds existed to terminate Father's parental rights pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(1)-(3) and further concluding that it was in the child's best interests that Father's rights be terminated. On appeal, Father argued that the trial court erred by failing to make required findings pursuant to section 7B-1110(a). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because there was no conflict in the evidence, the trial court was not required to make findings of fact on the issue of whether the child's maternal grandmother was an appropriate relative placement; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that termination of Father's parental rights was in the child's best interests. View "In re K.A.M.A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Father's parental rights to his child, holding that the issues identified by counsel in Father's brief as arguably supporting the appeal were meritless.The trial court concluded that a ground for termination of Father's parental rights existed under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(5) and that it was in the child's best interests to terminate Father's parental rights. On appeal, counsel for Father filed a no-merit brief identifying issues that could support an appeal but that lacked merit. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's order was supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence and was based on proper legal grounds. View "In re Z.J.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court terminating Mother's parental rights to her child based on N.C. Gen. Stat. 7B-1111(a)(8) and thereafter ceasing reunification with Mother, holding that there was no error.The trial court concluded that Mother had aided, abetted, or conspired to commit voluntary manslaughter of another child and, as such, grounds existed to terminate Mother's parental rights to her child pursuant to section 7B-1111(a)(8). The court further concluded that terminating Respondent's parental rights was in the child's best interests and ordered that reunification efforts with Mother cease. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court properly terminated Mother's parental rights and properly ceased reunification efforts. View "In re C.B.C.B." on Justia Law