Earl W. Vaughn

This case involved a dispute over restrictive covenants on defendant's property that prohibited more than one dwelling. Plaintiffs sued to enjoin defendant's construction of a second residence, and after initial orders requiring removal of the incomplete structure, defendant sought to modify the judgment under Rule 60(b)(5) by converting the structure into a permitted garage. The trial court denied relief, but the Court of Appeals reversed and directed modification; the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed that decision and remanded the case. The court held that Rule 60(b)(5) grants the trial judge discretion to relieve a party from a judgment's prospective application when it is no longer equitable, and the Court of Appeals improperly removed that discretion by mandating a particular outcome. The case was remanded for the trial court to exercise its discretion, potentially with conditions to protect the plaintiffs' interests under the covenants.

propertyprocedure

This case involved a law firm's attempt to intervene in a domestic dispute between Carol Thompson and her husband to enforce a contingent fee contract for legal services or, alternatively, to recover the reasonable value of services rendered before discharge. The Court of Appeals had already ruled the contingent fee contract void as against public policy, a holding that became the law of the case. The North Carolina Supreme Court held that the void contract gave the firm no interest in the underlying suit, requiring vacation of the intervention order and dismissal of the firm's action. It further ruled that no recovery was available on a quantum meruit basis when an express contract is unenforceable for public policy reasons, reversing the Court of Appeals' remand for valuation of services. The case was remanded with instructions to dismiss the intervenors.

family lawprocedure

The case involved a defendant convicted of first-degree sexual offense after he forced a victim to perform oral sex on him at knifepoint in a car. The defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, arguing that the testimony about the sexual act was ambiguous, and also objected to the admission of false identification cards found in his possession. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the victim's testimony describing "oral sex" was sufficient because the statutory definition of "sexual act" includes fellatio and the term reasonably refers to that act, with additional details confirming the conduct. The court further ruled that the identification cards were relevant to show the defendant used a false name consistent with the crime.

criminal law

The case concerned whether a criminal defendant's pre-trial silence could be used on cross-examination to impeach his trial testimony after he chose to take the stand. The North Carolina Court of Appeals held that such questioning did not violate the defendant's due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment or his right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment and the North Carolina Constitution. The court reasoned that the record showed no Miranda warnings had been given, so there was no implicit assurance that silence would carry no penalty, and that prior silence inconsistent with trial testimony may be used for impeachment under established precedent like Fletcher v. Weir. The opinion distinguished cases where Miranda warnings created a due process bar and affirmed the state's right to test credibility through cross-examination once the defendant testifies.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Ford, the defendant, after pleading guilty to drug-related charges under G.S. 90-95, appealed both the imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence and fine and the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search of a mobile home. The court held that the guilty plea precluded any appeal of the sentence as cruel and unusual punishment. It further ruled that the defendant lacked standing to challenge the search warrant because he had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the premises searched, having asserted neither a possessory interest nor legitimate presence at the time. Even assuming standing, the court found the warrant valid, as probable cause existed based on the detection of marijuana odor by officers lawfully positioned in nearby woods, which qualified as open fields under the Fourth Amendment with no protected privacy interest.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned the interpretation of a compulsory filing endorsement in a credit insurance policy issued by ACI to Akzona, with excess coverage from First State, arising from the insolvency of debtor Victoria Fabrics. The trial court granted partial summary judgment, holding that Akzona's failure to timely file its claim under the endorsement did not forfeit coverage but instead reinstated the primary policy's deduction for amounts received from the excess insurer. On appeal, the court affirmed, finding the policy provisions ambiguous due to their complexity and inconsistent language regarding optional versus compulsory filing, and thus construing the ambiguity against the insurer ACI. The court also rejected First State's arguments regarding coverage limits and the timing of claims against the excess insurer, ruling that the primary policy met retention requirements and that joinder and interest accrual were proper under the policy terms and procedural rules.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a homebuyer suing a builder for failing to fix a water drainage problem around the foundation of a new house. The trial court found the builder breached written warranties in the construction contract regarding drainage and grading, as well as related oral representations, and awarded compensatory damages that it trebled under the state unfair trade practices statute. The appeals court affirmed the breach of warranty holding, reasoning that the contract language created affirmative obligations on the builder to correct the drainage issue despite its placement in a 'non-warrantable items' section, and that the buyer had properly notified the builder. However, it reversed the unfair trade practices ruling and treble damages, holding that a simple breach of express warranties in a contract does not rise to the level of an unfair or oppressive practice under the statute. The court modified the judgment accordingly and affirmed it as modified.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case involves a plaintiff injured during a robbery at a convenience store who sued the store owner, alleging liability for failing to protect business invitees from third-party criminal acts. The court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the defendant. North Carolina law recognizes potential landowner liability in such cases when criminal activity is reasonably foreseeable, as established in precedents like Foster v. Winston-Salem Joint Venture. The court held that evidence of one prior robbery at the store five years earlier, plus occasional area robberies at various businesses, was insufficient to create a triable issue of foreseeability, so no duty to protect arose.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case concerned whether one tenant in common could grant an easement for a right-of-way over jointly held property that would bind his co-tenant who did not join the conveyance. The court affirmed the trial court's decision that Hubert Pressley lacked authority to convey an easement binding Alaska Pressley. The core reasoning rests on the principle that tenants in common hold undivided interests with equal rights of possession, and one co-tenant may not bind another by acts relating to the common property absent ratification or estoppel. North Carolina case law establishes that a co-tenant cannot subject the property to servitudes that affect the rights of the other co-tenant, rendering the attempted grant inoperative as to the non-joining party. The court also upheld the use of declaratory judgment to resolve the issue and the dismissal of remaining claims once the easement question was decided.

property

The case involved a challenge to a driver's license suspension under North Carolina law for willfully refusing to submit to a chemical breath test after being arrested for suspected drunk driving. The plaintiff argued that his initial silence and later willingness to take the test within the 30-minute window did not constitute a willful refusal, and that the request was not properly made. The court affirmed the suspension, holding that the evidence showed the plaintiff was aware of his rights and the time limit but knowingly allowed it to expire through inaction, which qualifies as willful refusal under the statute and precedent. The court also rejected the claim that the statutory procedure for requesting the test was violated.

criminal law

This case involved a petition by the Burke County Department of Social Services to terminate the parental rights of the mother and father of Thomas Tracy Whisnant. The father appealed, arguing that it was error for a judge who did not preside over the hearing to sign the termination orders. The court agreed and vacated the orders, holding that they were a nullity because Judge Tate, who conducted the hearing and announced the decision from the bench, never made the required findings of fact and conclusions of law under Rule 52 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 63, which allows a substitute judge to perform ministerial acts when the presiding judge is disabled, did not apply here since Judge Tate was not disabled and had not filed findings. The matter was remanded for Judge Tate to enter proper findings or, if unavailable, for a new hearing.

family lawprocedure

The case involved a juvenile, James Khork, adjudicated delinquent for arson at a school based on circumstantial evidence and his statements. The court rejected challenges to the admission of expert testimony concluding the fire was not electrically caused, finding the witness qualified by experience, and to lay testimony describing the defendant's nervous demeanor, deeming it a proper shorthand statement. The court also upheld the denial of the motion to dismiss, ruling that corroborative details in the confessions provided sufficient evidence of guilt. However, it vacated the commitment to the Division of Youth Services because the dispositional hearing record contained no evidence supporting commitment over less restrictive alternatives as required by statute, and remanded for a new dispositional hearing.

criminal lawprocedurefamily law

The case involved a law firm suing its former client for unpaid attorney's fees. The trial court permitted the client's attorney to withdraw on the day of trial without ensuring reasonable prior notice to the client and denied additional time to prepare or obtain new counsel. The appellate court held that this was error because an attorney may not withdraw without justifiable cause, reasonable notice to the client, and court permission, and without proper notice the court must grant a continuance. Due to the client's advanced age and poor health, she was prejudiced by the lack of time, so the judgment was vacated and the case remanded for a new trial.

procedure

The case involved a dispute over which insurers or guaranty entities were responsible for covering defense costs and liability in two civil claims (Bishop and Wilson) against the City of Greensboro arising from alleged wrongful acts before and after April 1976. The trial court allocated coverage such that the Reserve policy (via the Association) covered certain pre-1976 events and Wilson defense costs, Midland policies covered Bishop for higher amounts and post-1976 events, and prejudgment interest was available from Midland but not the Association. On appeal, the court affirmed most allocations after rejecting Midland's late-notice defense (finding timely notice to its general agent imputed to the insurer) and the Association's public-policy challenge (due to insufficient record on the nature of the underlying acts), while upholding the denial of prejudgment interest against the statutory Association on grounds that its liability is limited to the insolvent insurer's policy obligations. The decision also addressed subrogation rights and the nonduplication statute but largely affirmed the trial court's framework for liability sharing.

business & regulatorycivil rightsprocedure

The case involved a dispute between Marcoin, Inc. and its former licensee McDaniel over two business service license agreements. McDaniel counterclaimed for fraud in the inducement and breach of contract, alleging that the licensor misrepresented how fee schedules could change at five-year renewal points under the agreements' terms. The court directed verdicts against the fraud claim, finding that the only representation made was true and that the contract language in paragraphs 4 and 11 was unambiguous in allowing new fee schedules. It also rejected several breach arguments but reversed in part on other issues such as the handling of amended pleadings and evidence of client account sales. The decision turned on the clarity of the written agreements and the absence of any false statements or concealment by the licensor's employee.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a defendant charged under G.S. 49-2 with the misdemeanor of willfully neglecting or refusing to support his illegitimate child, which requires proof of both paternity and willful failure to support. The jury returned a verdict of "Guilty of non-support of illegitimate child," which the court found defective because it neither referenced the warrant nor clearly established the essential elements of paternity and willfulness. The court held the verdict improper and unresponsive to the charge, vacated the judgment, and remanded for a new trial, while recommending submission of specific written issues to the jury to resolve the material facts.

criminal lawfamily lawprocedure

In State v. Hopkins, the defendant was convicted under North Carolina's felony false pretenses statute (G.S. 14-100) after presenting a worthless check along with a false employee identification card claiming employment at a dissolved company, and he challenged both the applicability of the felony statute over misdemeanor worthless check laws and the admission of evidence from a vehicle search. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the additional affirmative misrepresentation of employment status beyond the check itself justified prosecution under the felony statute, as the elements of false representation, intent to deceive, actual deception, and obtaining value were all satisfied. It further ruled that the warrantless search of the vehicle's passenger compartment and containers was lawful under the Belton rule as a search incident to a valid custodial arrest based on plain-view observation of contraband. The opinion rejected claims of due process or double jeopardy violations and found sufficient circumstantial evidence of fraudulent intent.

criminal lawprocedure

In Pembee Mfg. Corp. v. Cape Fear Construction Co., the plaintiff sued contractors and architects for a defective roof on its manufacturing plant after leaks were found in 1980. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was barred by the three-year statute of limitations. The court held that the action accrued by 1977 at latest, when leaks discovered in 1973, 1976, and 1977 should have made the defect apparent under G.S. 1-52(16), so the later suit was untimely. It rejected equitable estoppel because no defendant conduct induced delay in filing. The decision affirmed summary judgment without addressing other statutes.

proceduretorts & liability

In State v. Miller, the defendants appealed their convictions for armed robbery and related offenses, arguing that the trial court erred in admitting in-court identifications by three witnesses after some pretrial photographic lineups were deemed unduly suggestive, in denying a motion to sequester witnesses, and in refusing certain jury instructions on interracial identification and fingerprint evidence. The court affirmed the trial judge's rulings, finding that the in-court identifications were properly admitted because they had an independent origin based on the witnesses' observations during the crimes, that the denial of sequestration was not an abuse of discretion, and that the jury instructions were supported by the evidence or any error was harmless. The core reasoning relied on established precedents requiring voir dire to assess independent origins for identifications and concluding that findings supported by competent evidence are conclusive on appeal, with no prejudice shown on the other claims.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a dispute between Duke Power Company and the City of High Point over the City's authority to construct electric lines outside its corporate limits to an area slated for annexation, specifically to provide street lighting. The court held that the City could lawfully extend service under G.S. 160A-312, which grants municipalities limited authority to operate public enterprises outside their boundaries within reasonable limitations, and affirmed the trial court's order authorizing the construction. It distinguished this pre-annexation extension from rules governing service inside corporate limits under G.S. 160A-331 to 160A-338 and found the City's purpose of furnishing a municipal service to inhabitants satisfied the reasonableness standard, unlike extensions solely for profit to specific customers. The court also vacated the trial court's conclusion regarding Duke's prospective status as a secondary supplier because that issue was not yet ripe before the annexation effective date.

business & regulatory