Wanda G. Bryant

In Fatta v. M & M Properties Management, Inc., the plaintiff alleged that his former employer violated the North Carolina Retaliatory Employment Discrimination Act (REDA) and wrongfully discharged him in violation of public policy after he reported a workplace injury sustained during training and later filed a workers’ compensation claim. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on all claims, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that the plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact showing that the employer’s stated reason for termination—documented poor job performance noted from the beginning of his short employment—was a pretext for retaliation, as the evidence of legitimate, non-discriminatory grounds was not overcome by the plaintiff’s circumstantial assertions.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

In Holloway v. Holloway, a mother sued her son in North Carolina superior court for breach of an oral agreement and to recover payments she made on his modular home after moving from California in 2007 to live there permanently in exchange for covering the mortgage, back taxes, and land rent. The son had previously filed an unsuccessful summary ejectment action against her in small claims court, which she won on appeal to district court. The trial court denied the son's motions to dismiss on grounds of res judicata and failure to state a claim, found no enforceable contract but a fiduciary relationship based on the parties' discussions and her reliance on him for care, and awarded her roughly $29,870 on an unjust enrichment theory. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the mother's claims were not compulsory counterclaims in the prior ejectment case because they had not matured, that her complaint was facially sufficient, and that competent evidence supported the trial court's finding of a fiduciary relationship arising from the son's encouragement and assistance in her relocation.

family lawpropertyproceduretorts & liability

In January 2008, defendant Ceasar Armando Laurean, a Marine corporal, was indicted on charges including first-degree murder, robbery with a dangerous weapon, and financial transaction card theft arising from the December 2007 killing of Lance Corporal Maria Lauterbach, whose body was found burned and buried in a fire pit at his home after she had accused him of sexual assault; he was convicted of first-degree murder and related offenses and sentenced to life without parole. On appeal, Laurean argued that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of second-degree murder and by excluding evidence of specific instances of the victim’s disciplinary conduct. The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that the evidence of premeditation and deliberation supported a first-degree murder instruction and did not require a second-degree option, and that the excluded conduct evidence was irrelevant under Rules 404(b) and 403 because it did not tend to prove motive, plan, or any essential element while the victim’s general reputation for truthfulness had been admitted. The court therefore found no error in the trial proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Hewson, defendant Robert Hewson, convicted in 2005 of first-degree murder and related charges based on evidence that he shot into an occupied home, killing his wife, later filed a pro se motion seeking post-conviction independent DNA testing of items from the crime scene and his clothing. He argued that advances in DNA analysis and alleged problems at the SBI lab could produce results contradicting the original tests and supporting his claim that he was inside the house rather than firing from outside. The trial court denied the motion, finding the supporting affidavit insufficient and the requested testing not material to the defense. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that even if new testing showed the defendant had been inside or in close contact with the victim, it would not undermine the substantial evidence of premeditation and deliberation or the felony-murder theory based on shooting into occupied property, and thus created no reasonable probability of a different outcome.

criminal lawprocedure

This case arose from the investigation into the 2010 disappearance of Zahra Baker, during which multiple search warrants and related documents were sealed by court orders upon the State's motion. An administrative order issued by the senior resident superior court judge established procedures requiring that such sealing orders expire after 30 days unless extended by a timely motion. When news media organizations requested access to warrants sealed for more than 30 days and the State filed its extension motion only afterward, Superior Court Judge Poovey ordered the documents unsealed in accordance with the administrative order's terms. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the unsealing complied with the administrative procedures, reflected the presumptive public right of access to court records, and did not involve improper exercise of appellate jurisdiction or limitation of judicial discretion, as the original sealing orders did not conflict with the 30-day expiration rule.

criminal lawprocedurefree speech

In State v. Rogers, the defendant was convicted of attempted first-degree murder and assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury after shooting Ralston, the husband of a woman with whom the defendant had been having an affair. The North Carolina Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not violate the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel by disqualifying his chosen attorney, did not commit plain error by instructing the jury that the defendant bore the burden of persuasion on his automatism defense, and did not violate double jeopardy by entering judgment on both offenses. The court reasoned that the record showed a serious potential conflict of interest justifying removal of counsel, that precedent established the defendant’s burden on automatism, and that each offense contained at least one element the other did not, so convictions on both were permissible even though they arose from the same incident.

criminal lawprocedure

In Technocom Business Systems Inc. v. North Carolina Department of Revenue, the case concerned whether a company could offset its use tax liability on parts and supplies used to fulfill optional maintenance agreements with sales taxes it had erroneously collected from customers on those same agreements and remitted to the Department during a 2002–2005 audit period. The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court’s ruling in favor of Technocom, holding that the company was entitled to a tax credit of $192,457.33. The court reasoned that the specific statute governing erroneous collections on exempt or nontaxable sales (N.C.G.S. § 105-164.11) did not apply, because the maintenance agreements involved taxable uses rather than sales; therefore, the general overpayment credit provision (N.C.G.S. § 105-164.41) controlled and permitted the offset.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

In this case, after obtaining a large money judgment against defendant Ung Ahn for breach of contract and related claims, the plaintiff sought post-judgment discovery and a restraining order on Ahn’s assets while Ahn’s appeal of the underlying judgment was pending. The trial court issued a supplemental order barring Ahn from transferring or disposing of non-exempt North Carolina property and compelling banks and other entities to respond to subpoenas for asset information. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court retained jurisdiction because the supplemental order did not address the merits of the case but merely protected the plaintiff’s collection rights during the appeal. It further held that the asset-restraint order was expressly authorized by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-358, which permits a court to forbid transfers of a judgment debtor’s non-exempt property, and that the order was not overly broad because Ahn remained free to claim additional exemptions.

procedureproperty

In State v. King, defendant Michael King was convicted after a jury trial of possession with intent to sell or deliver cocaine, sale of cocaine, possession of drug paraphernalia, and attaining habitual felon status, based on evidence that he sold crack cocaine to undercover officers. On appeal, King argued that the incomplete trial transcript prevented meaningful review, that a witness improperly testified about his silence, and that his counsel provided ineffective assistance by conceding guilt on the paraphernalia charge without his consent. The North Carolina Court of Appeals found no error in the underlying drug convictions but held that the absence of a verbatim transcript or adequate alternative reconstruction required reversal of the habitual felon adjudication and remand for a new hearing on that issue, as the missing portions specifically impaired review of that proceeding. The court dismissed the ineffective-assistance claim without prejudice to allow King to seek an evidentiary hearing via a motion for appropriate relief in the trial court, because the record did not show whether he consented to counsel’s concession of guilt.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Kidwell, Keith Kidwell appealed his convictions for first-degree murder (on a felony-murder theory) and larceny after a jury found he killed convenience-store clerk Crayton Nelms during a robbery at a Durham County Kangaroo store. The evidence showed Kidwell was arrested the next day in Oklahoma driving the victim’s truck, in possession of roughly $628 in cash that included a bill with the victim’s DNA, wearing shoes whose prints matched those at the scene and that bore both his and the victim’s DNA, and having made an incriminating statement to police. On appeal Kidwell argued the trial court erred by denying his motions for a continuance after the State’s late disclosure of police notes and other materials, and by denying his motion to dismiss the murder charge for insufficient evidence. The North Carolina Court of Appeals held there was no error, reasoning that Kidwell showed only speculative prejudice from the untimely discovery and that the State presented substantial direct and circumstantial evidence linking him to the killing committed in the course of the robbery.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, plaintiffs Bodie Island Beach Club Association sued multiple defendants, including SRS North Carolina Properties, LLC, alleging legal malpractice, conversion, constructive fraud, civil conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, and seeking to set aside a deed due to fraud. After Dr. Stephen Smith, acting for SRS, responded only with informal letters rather than a formal answer within 30 days of service, the trial court denied SRS's motion to amend its answer, entered default against it, granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, and later denied SRS's motion to set aside those rulings. The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that SRS had failed to file a timely responsive pleading or request an extension, rendering the informal letters ineffective under the rules of civil procedure. The court further reasoned that SRS showed no good cause to set aside the default and that Rule 59 motions for relief were inapplicable because the case had concluded at the summary judgment stage rather than after trial.

proceduretorts & liabilityproperty

In Barton v. Barton, a divorcing couple disputed the classification and valuation of numerous assets as marital or separate property for equitable distribution purposes after separating in 2006; they resolved custody and support by consent order but submitted the financial issues to binding arbitration under North Carolina’s Family Law Arbitration Act, preserving the right to appeal legal errors. The arbitrator issued an award classifying various accounts, pensions, retirement plans, and other items, which the trial court confirmed. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the confirmation of the award in most respects, finding no evident mistakes or legal errors warranting vacatur under N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 50-54 and 50-55, but reversed and remanded for modification of two portions of the order involving miscalculations in the valuation of specific retirement benefits. The court reasoned that arbitration awards are entitled to substantial deference and may be altered only for narrow statutory grounds such as evident miscalculations, not for reweighing evidence or correcting non-prejudicial errors.

family lawproperty

In this case, the Guilford County Board of Education challenged a district court administrative order allowing bail agents to file motions to set aside bond forfeitures on behalf of corporate sureties, arguing that such filings violated North Carolina’s unauthorized practice of law statute (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 84-4) because only licensed attorneys or the surety itself could act. The underlying dispute arose after a bail agent for Allegheny Casualty Company filed a motion to set aside a forfeited appearance bond for defendant Theodore Herbin, prompting the Board to seek stays and reconsideration of procedures permitting agents to proceed pro se. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling that bail agents may file these motions and appear pro se to protect their own financial interests. The core reasoning was that preparing and filing such a motion does not constitute appearing “as attorney or counselor at law” before a judicial body, as an agent with primary financial liability acts on its own interest rather than representing another, consistent with precedents such as Pledger v. State Bar and Gardner v. N.C. State Bar; however, a corporate surety must still be represented by counsel at hearings.

criminal lawprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case concerned homeowners who sued a construction company, engineering firms, a plumbing contractor, and the City of Thomasville after a sewer backup flooded their house with sewage, alleging negligence in the construction and oversight of a new sewer system for a Randolph County school. The trial court dismissed the claims against the City under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), citing governmental immunity and failure to state a claim. On appeal, the court held that an issue existed as to whether the City was performing a proprietary rather than governmental function, which could defeat immunity, but affirmed the dismissal because the complaint alleged only preparatory involvement by the City without asserting any actual duty, control, or adoption of the sewer system that would create liability. The court reasoned that a municipality incurs responsibility for sewer lines only when it assumes control or incorporates them into its system, which was not shown here.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved defendant Abdelfettah Louali, who was charged with receiving stolen goods under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-71(b) after purchasing two laptops from an undercover police officer in an operation at his business. The defendant moved to dismiss the charge, arguing there was insufficient evidence that the officer had explicitly represented the laptops as stolen property, as required by the statute. The trial court denied the motion, and the defendant was convicted by a jury. On appeal, the court held that the statute does not require specific words such as "stolen" and that the officer's statements—describing the laptops as taken through an open door, referencing that the business buys stolen property, and offering to obtain more—constituted sufficient evidence of an explicit representation. Therefore, the trial court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a father charged with multiple counts of indecent liberties with a child, first-degree statutory sex offense with a child under thirteen, and second-degree sex offense, based on testimony that he repeatedly forced his son to engage in sexual acts weekly over two years while the son was in sixth and seventh grade. The defendant moved to dismiss all charges at trial, contending the evidence was insufficient to support convictions on thirty-six separate counts because the victim did not describe each act in specific detail, but the trial court denied the motions and the jury returned guilty verdicts on every count. The appellate court affirmed, ruling that the victim's testimony of recurring weekly acts provided substantial evidence of each element and that precedents on jury unanimity for such ongoing offenses permitted multiple convictions without risk of non-unanimous verdicts.

criminal law

In State v. King, the defendant faced charges including first-degree rape, felony child abuse, incest, and indecent liberties with a child based on an alleged 1996 incident with his daughter that was reported years later. The trial court granted the defendant's pretrial motion to suppress expert testimony regarding repressed or recovered memory, concluding under North Carolina Rule of Evidence 403 that the evidence's probative value was substantially outweighed by risks of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, and misleading the jury, given ongoing scientific controversy over the theory's reliability and general acceptance. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in weighing these factors after considering the Howerton test for expert testimony, other jurisdictions' approaches, and the split in the scientific community. The decision upheld exclusion of the testimony without reaching whether the theory could ever meet admissibility standards.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute between a builder and homeowners over payment for staircase construction work, where the builder sought recovery under breach of contract, a materialman's lien, and quantum meruit after a disagreement on the final amount owed. The trial court awarded the builder $5,000 under quantum meruit, granted a lien on the property, and awarded attorney fees, but the appellate court reversed the lien and vacated the fees. The court reasoned that a claim of lien under North Carolina law requires an express or implied-in-fact contract, not recovery based on quantum meruit which is an implied-in-law contract. The appellate court affirmed the quantum meruit award and the finding that no unilateral contract existed between the parties.

business & regulatorylabor & employmentproperty

In Martin v. Kilauea Properties, LLC, a visitor to a leased second-floor apartment fell through a deck after stepping on an area where a tenant had removed a planter box, suffering a neck fracture and lacerations; she sued the landlord for negligence in maintaining unsafe premises. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant landlord, and the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that a landlord cannot be held liable for harm to third parties caused by a hazardous condition on leased premises when the landlord lacks actual or imputed knowledge of the condition created by the tenant, the statutory duty to maintain habitable premises does not extend liability without such knowledge, and the deck was not a common area but was exclusively used by the tenant.

propertytorts & liability

The case involved a North Carolina plaintiff who entered into agreements with an Illinois-based company for advances on anticipated personal injury settlement proceeds, in exchange for repayment plus fees if he recovered. After settling his injury claim, the plaintiff sued the company and its officers in North Carolina superior court, alleging usury, unfair trade practices, and related claims. The defendants moved to dismiss for improper venue based on a forum selection clause designating Cook County, Illinois, as the exclusive forum. The trial court denied the motion, finding the contract was formed in North Carolina and enforcement of the clause would be unreasonable. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the contract was formed in Illinois (where the final signature occurred) and that enforcement of the clause was neither unfair nor unreasonable, and remanded for dismissal.

procedurebusiness & regulatory