Advance Sheets Court of Appeals

264 N.C. App.—No. 3 Pages 251-641 264 N.C. App.—No. 3 ADVANCE SHEETS OF CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE COURT OF APPEALS Pages 251-641 OF NORTH CAROLINA AUGUST 5, 2020 MAILING ADDRESS: The Judicial Department P. O. Box 2170, Raleigh, N. C. 27602-2170 COMMERCIAL PRINTING COMPANY PRINTERS TO THE SUPREME COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEALS THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA Chief Judge LINDA M. McGEE Judges WANDA G. BRYANT PHIL BERGER, JR. DONNA S. STROUD HUNTER MURPHY CHRIS DILLON JOHN S. ARROWOOD RICHARD D. DIETZ ALLEGRA K. COLLINS JOHN M. TYSON TOBIAS S. HAMPSON LUCY INMAN REUBEN F. YOUNG VALERIE J. ZACHARY CHRISTOPHER BROOK Former Chief Judges GERALD ARNOLD SIDNEY S. EAGLES, JR. JOHN C. MARTIN Former Judges WILLIAM E. GRAHAM, JR. PATRICIA TIMMONS-GOODSON J. PHIL CARLTON ROBIN E. HUDSON BURLEY B. MITCHELL, JR. ERIC L. LEVINSON WILLIS P. WHICHARD JAMES A. WYNN, JR. CHARLES L. BECTON BARBARA A. JACKSON ALLYSON K. DUNCAN CHERI BEASLEY SARAH PARKER CRESSIE H. THIGPEN, JR. ELIZABETH G. McCRODDEN ROBERT C. HUNTER ROBERT F. ORR LISA C. BELL JACK COZORT SAMUEL J. ERVIN, IV MARK D. MARTIN SANFORD L. STEELMAN, JR. JOHN B. LEWIS, JR. MARTHA GEER CLARENCE E. HORTON, JR. LINDA STEPHENS JOSEPH R. JOHN, SR. J. DOUGLAS McCULLOUGH ROBERT H. EDMUNDS, JR. WENDY M. ENOCHS JAMES C. FULLER ANN MARIE CALABRIA K. EDWARD GREENE RICHARD A. ELMORE RALPH A. WALKER MARK A. DAVIS ALBERT S. THOMAS, JR. ROBERT N. HUNTER, JR. LORETTA COPELAND BIGGS ALAN Z. THORNBURG Clerk DANIEL M. HORNE, JR. Assistant Clerk Shelley Lucas Edwards OFFICE OF STAFF COUNSEL Director Jaye E. Bingham-Hinch Assistant Director David Alan Lagos Staff Attorneys Bryan A. Meer Eugene H. Soar Michael W. Rodgers Lauren M. Tierney Carolina Koo Lindsey Ross D. Wilfley Hannah R. Murphy ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS Director McKinley Wooten Assistant Director David F. Hoke OFFICE OF APPELLATE DIVISION REPORTER Alyssa M. Chen1 Jennifer C. Peterson Niccolle C. Hernandez2 1Appointed Appellate Division Reporter 1 June 2020. 2Appointed 8 June 2020. ii COURT OF APPEALS CASES REPORTED FILED 19 MARCH 2019 Adams v. Langdon ................ 251 Ramsey v. Ramsey ............... 431 Aesthetic Facial & Ocular Plastic Surgery Simms v. Bolger .................. 442 Ctr., P.A. v. Zaldivar ............ 260 Simms v. Bolger .................. 456 Assoc. Behavioral Servs., Inc. Sluder v. Sluder .................. 461 v. Smith ...................... 277 State v. Gamez ................... 467 BDM Invs. v. Lenhil, Inc. .......... 282 State v. Griffin ................... 490 Estate of Tipton v. Delta Sigma State v. Lopez .................... 496 Phi Fraternity, Inc. ............. 313 State v. Miller .................... 517 Feeassco, LLC v. Steel State v. Rivera ................... 525 Network, Inc. ................. 327 State v. Shackelford .............. 542 Gunter v. Maher .................. 344 State v. Steen .................... 566 Hager v. Smithfield E. Health Stern v. Stern .................... 585 Holdings, LLC ................. 350 Tarr v. Zalaznik .................. 597 Henry v. Morgan ................. 363 Watauga Cty. o/b/o McKiernan Hill v. Durrett .................... 367 v. Shell ....................... 608 Huml v. Huml .................... 376 Weishaupt-Smith v. Town of In re J.L. ........................ 408 Banner Elk ................... 618 Julian v. Univ. of N.C. Health Wright v. Alltech Wiring Care Sys. ..................... 424 & Controls .................... 626 CASES REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS Arroyo v. Yanez ................... 637 Stamey v. Stamey ................. 638 Brinkley-Caldwell State v. Al-Hamood ................ 638 v. Britthaven, Inc. ............... 637 State v. Ardrey .................... 638 Chalk v. Braakman ................ 637 State v. Benjamin ................. 638 Cronje v. Johnston ................ 637 State v. Bradshaw ................. 638 Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n v. Price ...... 637 State v. Callaghan ................. 638 Helbein v. Helbein ................. 637 State v. Chester ................... 638 In re A.B. ........................ 637 State v. Cole ...................... 639 In re A.D.S. ....................... 637 State v. Fletcher .................. 639 In re A.J.K. ....................... 637 State v. Hight ..................... 639 In re A.X.M. ...................... 637 State v. Jackson ................... 639 In re B.L. ......................... 637 State v. Jaimes .................... 639 In re J.A.C. ....................... 637 State v. King ...................... 639 In re K.N.C.H. .................... 637 State v. Kope ..................... 639 In re M.F.B. ...................... 638 State v. Lane ...................... 639 In re M.R.C-M. .................... 638 State v. Lopes ..................... 639 In re P.L.R. ....................... 638 State v. Moore .................... 639 Lea v. David’s Bridal of State v. Morgan ................... 639 Greensboro, Inc. 638 State v. Moss ..................... 640 Makar v. Mimosa Bay State v. Paylor .................... 640 Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. ......... 638 State v. Ragland ................... 640 Mathis v. Jones ................... 638 State v. Richardson ................ 640 O’Buckley v. O’Buckley ............ 638 State v. Ruffin .................... 640 iii State v. Sanders ................... 640 Tucker Chase, LLC v. Town State v. Schricker.................. 640 of Midland ..................... 641 State v. Shchetinin ................ 640 Tyson v. Bess ..................... 641 State v. Smith ..................... 640 Wright v. N.C. Office of State State v. Spikes .................... 640 Human Res. 641 State v. Zimmerman ............... 640 HEADNOTE INDEX ANNULMENT Motion for summary judgment—propriety of ruling—The trial court erred in granting an annulment on plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The plain text of N.C.G.S. § 50-10(d) expressly permits a trial court to enter judgment for “abso- lute divorce,” but not for annulment, at the summary judgment stage. The Court of Appeals rejected plaintiff’s argument that the trial court properly granted the annulment as part of a regular bench trial, since the proceeding clearly was a hearing on summary judgment. Hill v. Durrett, 367. APPEAL AND ERROR Appealability—interlocutory orders—order compelling discovery—statutory privilege asserted—An order compelling discovery in a negligence case was immediately appealable where appellants argued that it violated the attorney-client privilege. Although an order compelling discovery is interlocutory and, ordinarily, does not affect a substantial right, it can affect a substantial right where the appellant asserts that it violates a statutory privilege. Gunter v. Maher, 344. Appellate Rules violations—substantial—warranting dismissal—In an appeal from an order of civil contempt for failure to comply with a domestic consent judgment, the nature and quantity of appellant’s violations of the Rules of Appellate Procedure constituted gross and substantial violations warranting dismissal of the appeal. Ramsey v. Ramsey, 431. Denial of motion to modify custody—other matters pending—appellate review per N.C.G.S. § 50-19.1—A trial court’s order denying a motion to modify custody was immediately appealable even though other matters between the parties remained pending (alimony, equitable distribution, and post separation support) because the order would otherwise be a final order within the meaning of Civil Procedure Rule 54(b) and was therefore reviewable pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 50-19.1. Stern v. Stern, 585. Effective assistance of counsel—propriety of review on direct appeal—In a prosecution for taking indecent liberties with a child, the record was insufficient to permit appellate review of defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim where his trial counsel did not properly move to suppress evidence. The trial court did not conduct a suppression hearing on defendant’s purported motion, and without know- ing what evidence might have been produced at such a hearing, it was impossible to determine on direct appeal whether trial counsel’s error prejudiced the defense. State v. Rivera, 525. Interlocutory order—discovery and sanctions orders—affecting a substantial right—Defendant’s appeal from two interlocutory orders—one compelling discovery and one imposing sanctions—affected a substantial right where the trial court struck defendant’s answer and entered judgment for plaintiffs as iv APPEAL AND ERROR—Continued to liability in a contract dispute concerning commissions. Feeassco, LLC v. Steel Network, Inc., 327. Interlocutory order—order denying motion to compel discovery—information essential to proof of claim—Defendant’s appeal from an interlocutory order denying his motion to compel discovery was dismissed where the information sought was not highly material to a determination of the critical question to be resolved in a contract dispute involving commissions. Any inability or refusal by plaintiff to provide the requested calculation of damages would not have precluded defendant from defending against plaintiff’s claims because defendant already pos- sessed the information needed to make such calculations and it was in as good or better position than plaintiff to do so. Where defendant neither addressed the interlocutory nature of the denial of his motion for sanctions nor argued why appellate review was appropriate, the appeal from that order was dismissed. Feeassco, LLC v. Steel Network, Inc., 327. Interlocutory orders—stay order—Appellate Rule 2—administration of

Load more