376 N.C.—No. 3 Pages 558-679 BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS ADVANCE SHEETS OF CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA APRIL 12, 2021 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 SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA Chief Justice CHERI BEASLEY1 PAUL MARTIN NEWBY2 Associate Justices ROBIN E. HUDSON MARK A. DAVIS3 SAMUEL J. ERVIN, IV PHIL BERGER, JR.4 MICHAEL R. MORGAN TAMARA PATTERSON BARRINGER5 ANITA EARLS Former Chief Justices RHODA B. BILLINGS JAMES G. EXUM, JR. BURLEY B. MITCHELL, JR. HENRY E. FRYE SARAH PARKER MARK D. MARTIN Former Justices ROBERT R. BROWNING GEORGE L. WAINWRIGHT, JR. J. PHIL CARLTON EDWARD THOMAS BRADY WILLIS P. WHICHARD PATRICIA TIMMONS-GOODSON JAMES A. WYNN, JR. ROBERT N. HUNTER, JR. FRANKLIN E. FREEMAN, JR. ROBERT H. EDMUNDS, JR. G. K. BUTTERFIELD, JR. BARBARA A. JACKSON ROBERT F. ORR Clerk AMY L. FUNDERBURK Librarian THOMAS P. DAVIS Marshal WILLIAM BOWMAN 1Term ended 31 December 2020. 2Sworn in 1 January 2021. 3Term ended 31 December 2020. 4Sworn in 1 January 2021. 5Sworn in 1 January 2021. i ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS Director MCKINLEY WOOTEN6 ANDREW HEatH7 Assistant Director DAVID F. HOKE OFFICE OF APPELLATE DIVISION REPORTER ALYSSA M. CHEN JENNIFER C. PETERSON NICCOLLE C. HERNANDEZ 6Resigned 7 January 2021. 7Appointed 8 January 2021. ii SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA CASES REPORTED FILED 5 FEBRUARY 2021 Comm. to Elect Dan Forest In re J.T.C. ...................... 642 v. Emps. Pol. Action Comm. ..... 558 In re S.F.D. ...................... 643 In re C.L.H. ...................... 614 In re S.R.F. 647 In re J.E.B. ...................... 629 ORDERS In re C.B.C.B. ..................... 660 Lake v. State Health Plan for Tchrs. & State Emps. .................. 661 PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW UNDER G.S. 7A-31 Bauman v. Pasquotank Cnty. Newman v. Stepp ................. 673 ABC Bd. ....................... 670 Poovey v. Vista N.C. Ltd. P’ship ...... 671 Booth v. Hackney Acquisition Co. ... 674 Poulos v. Poulos .................. 670 Bridges v. Gordon ................. 667 Rucker v. Culler ................... 675 Cale v. Atkinson .................. 668 Sampson v. Hooks ................. 674 Christy Joy N.C. Partners LLC Shirey v. Shirey ................... 675 v. McDaniel .................... 677 State of N.C. v. Kinston Dacat, Inc. v. Jones Legacy Charter Acad. .................. 666 Transp., LLC ................... 672 State of N.C. v. Virginia Elec. Ford v. Freedom Mortg. Corp. ....... 676 and Power Co. 676 Garza v. State ..................... 666 State v. Anderson ................. 667 Griffin v. Absolute Fire Control, Inc... 667 State v. Anthony .................. 666 In re A.J.L.H. ..................... 667 State v. Beal ...................... 668 In re C.B.C.B. ..................... 677 State v. Best ...................... 668 In re City of Greensboro ........... 673 State v. Borum .................... 677 In re E.P.-L.M. .................... 674 State v. Bradsher .................. 666 In re G.J.A. ....................... 677 State v. Bullock ................... 677 In re Harris Teeter, LLC............. 671 State v. Burns ..................... 668 In re J.M. ........................ 674 State v. Byers ..................... 671 In re Lowe’s Home Ctrs., LLC . 668 State v. Clark ..................... 674 In re R.D.M. ...................... 669 State v. Cobb ..................... 667 In re S.M. ........................ 678 State v. Cook ..................... 677 James v. N.C. Dep’t of Pub. Safety ... 678 State v. Crouell ................... 675 James v. State of N.C. .............. 678 State v. Delau ..................... 667 Jones v. Locklear .................. 675 State v. Dove ..................... 666 Lake v. State Health Plan for State v. Goode .................... 667 Tchrs. & State Emps. ............ 675 State v. Gordon ................... 671 Lammert v. Morris ................. 668 State v. Gragg ..................... 677 Mace v. Utley ..................... 666 State v. Hargett ................... 669 McSwain v. Indus. Com. Sales State v. Harris .................... 679 & Serv., LLC . 669 State v. Hartgrove ................. 671 Nay v. Cornerstone Staffing Sols. 675 State v. Harvin .................... 676 New Hanover Cnty. Bd. of Educ. State v. Hawkins .................. 678 v. Stein ........................ 672 State v. Johnson ................... 669 iii State v. Joyner .................... 677 State v. Schmidt ................... 675 State v. Kearney ................... 671 State v. Sharma ................... 679 State v. Killette ................... 673 State v. Shuler .................... 669 State v. Marshall .................. 666 State v. Stokes .................... 668 State v. Mayo ..................... 675 State v. Taylor .................... 668 State v. McNeill ................... 673 State v. Tripp ..................... 667 State v. Moore .................... 668 State v. Walker .................... 676 State v. Ocampo .................. 676 State v. Watson ................... 671 State v. Osnarque ................. 670 State v. Womble ................... 676 State v. Owens .................... 671 State v. Woods .................... 678 State v. Paige ..................... 669 Stritzinger v. Bank of Am. .......... 675 State v. Patterson ................. 671 Tyler v. Scotland Corr. Inst. ......... 676 State v. Pierce .................... 669 Wallace v. Maxwell ................ 672 State v. Prudente-Anorve ........... 672 Williams v. Enter. Holdings, Inc. ..... 673 State v. Robinson ................. 678 HEADNOTE INDEX CONSTITUTIONAL LAW North Carolina—standing—no “injury in fact” requirement—legal right arising from statute—In a case of first impression, the Supreme Court held that, unlike the federal constitution, the North Carolina Constitution does not impose an “injury in fact” requirement for standing, and therefore a committee to elect a political candidate had standing to seek statutory damages against a political action committee for running a television advertisement that allegedly violated a “stand by your ad” law, even though the candidate won his election. The Court further clari- fied that where a statute (such as the “stand by your ad” law) expressly confers a cause of action to a class of persons, entitling them to sue for infringement of a legal right arising from the statute, a plaintiff has standing to bring that cause of action so long as he or she belongs to that designated class of persons. Comm. to Elect Dan Forest v. Emps. Pol. Action Comm., 558. TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS Appointed counsel—assistance from guardian ad litem—ineffective assis- tance of counsel claim—In a termination of parental rights case where the guard- ian ad litem participated in the hearing by questioning some witnesses and making arguments to the trial court, respondent’s claim that she received ineffective assis- tance of counsel because her appointed counsel was not sufficiently involved with the proceeding was rejected because the record reflected that counsel was engaged throughout and utilized the assistance of the guardian ad litem to better serve respondent. Respondent’s additional claim that the guardian ad litem was unpre- pared to assist her counsel was not supported by the record. In re J.E.B., 629. Grounds for termination—dependency—sufficiency of findings—The trial court’s findings were insufficient to support its conclusion that grounds existed to terminate respondent-father’s parental rights to his child based on dependency where the sole finding related to dependency—stating that there was no proper plan of care for the child during an incident in which respondent experienced a medical issue—was not supported by the evidence. There were no findings, nor evidence presented, that respondent’s health prevented him from providing proper care or supervision of the child. In re C.L.H., 614. iv TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS—Continued Grounds for termination—neglect—findings of fact—A trial court’s uncon- tested findings of fact supported its conclusion that grounds existed to terminate respondent-mother’s parental rights to her child based on neglect, where the find- ings not only demonstrated respondent’s failure to adequately address the domestic violence and substance abuse issues that contributed to the child being adjudicated neglected and dependent but also indicated a likelihood of future neglect based on respondent’s noncompliance with her case plan. Although portions of certain find- ings were unsupported by the evidence with regard to specific aspects of the case plan, any errors were harmless in light of the remaining supported findings. In re S.R.F., 647. Grounds for termination—neglect—sufficiency of findings—The trial court’s findings were insufficient to support its conclusion that grounds existed to terminate respondent-father’s parental rights to his child based on neglect where the sole find- ing—stating that the child was previously neglected due to lack of care when respon- dent experienced a medical issue—was not supported by the evidence. Further, the findings failed to address whether the child would be neglected in the future if returned to respondent’s care. In re C.L.H., 614. Grounds for termination—willful failure to pay child support—sufficiency of findings—In a termination of parental rights case, the trial court’s findings were insufficient to support termination on the grounds of