263 N.C. App.—No. 1 Pages 1-413 263 N.C. App.—No. 1 ADVANCE SHEETS OF CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF Pages 1-413 NORTH CAROLINA JUNE 30, 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 H. James Hutcheson Jennifer C. Peterson Alyssa M. Chen ii COURT OF APPEALS CASES REPORTED FILED 18 DECEMBER 2018 Ayscue v. Griffin ................. 1 Spencer v. Portfolio Recovery Bank of Am., N.A. v. McFarland .... 15 Assocs., LLC .................. 219 Bank of Am., N.A. v. Schmitt ....... 19 State v. Baker .................... 221 Desmond v. News & Observer State v. Byers .................... 231 Publ’g Co. .................... 26 State v. Coley .................... 249 Doe v. Doe ...................... 68 State v. Godfrey .................. 264 Gilmartin v. Gilmartin ............. 104 State v. Heelan ................... 275 Gyger v. Clement ................. 118 State v. Holmes .................. 289 Howe v. Links Club Condo. State v. Hyman ................... 310 Ass’n, Inc...................... 130 State v. Piland ................... 323 In re C.K.C. ..................... 158 State v. Pless .................... 341 In re Foreclosure of Radcliff ....... 165 State v. Seam .................... 355 Martin v. Martin .................. 173 State v. Shuler ................... 366 Master v. Country Club of Landfall ... 181 State v. Wirt . 370 McKinney v. McKinney ............ 190 Walton v. Walton ................. 380 MTGLQ Investors, L.P. v. Curnin .... 193 Watson v. Joyner-Watson .......... 393 Peeler v. Joseph .................. 198 Watson v. Watson ................ 404 Servatius v. Ryals ................ 213 CASES REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS Am. Express Bank, FSB Martin v. Landfall Council of v. Voyksner . 409 Ass’ns, Inc. 410 Brinkley Props. of Kings Mountain, LLC Reid v. Sterritt .................... 410 v. City of Kings Mountain . 409 Roberts v. Locke .................. 410 Brunson v. 12th Judiciary .......... 409 Rosen v. Club at Longview, LLC ..... 410 Brunson v. Dist. Attorney for the Schneeman v. Food Lion, LLC ....... 411 12th Prosecutorial Dist. 409 Sides v. Ashley Furniture Brunson v. Governor of N.C. ........ 409 Indus., Inc. 411 Brunson v. N.C. Dep’t of Simmons v. New Hanover Cty. Pub. Safety . 409 Sch. Sys. 411 Brunson v. N.C. Gen. Assembly ..... 409 State v. Acosta .................... 411 Brunson v. N.C. Innocence State v. Anthony .................. 411 Inquiry Comm’n ................ 409 State v. Clark ..................... 411 Carey v. Cherubini ................ 410 State v. Coomber .................. 411 Fischer v. Fagan .................. 410 State v. Daw ...................... 411 Gee v. Denzer ..................... 410 State v. Delair .................... 411 Glasgow v. Peoplease Corp. ........ 410 State v. Floars .................... 411 Howard v. OrthoCarolina, P.A. ...... 410 State v. Gross ..................... 411 In re A.K.J. ....................... 410 State v. Hayward .................. 411 In re B.A.S. ....................... 410 State v. Hill ....................... 411 In re B.W. ........................ 410 State v. Jarvis ..................... 412 In re E.B.J. ....................... 410 State v. Jefferson .................. 412 In re Estate of Toulouse ............ 410 State v. Jones ..................... 412 In re I.N.S. ....................... 410 State v. Joyner .................... 412 In re R.L.O. ....................... 410 State v. Langley ................... 412 iii State v. McAbee ................... 412 State v. Taylor .................... 412 State v. Orr ....................... 412 State v. Taylor .................... 413 State v. Rivera-Marquez ............ 412 State v. Timmons .................. 413 State v. Samuel ................... 412 Stiles v. Swinging Bridge, LLC ....... 413 State v. Stancil .................... 412 Wilkie v. City of Boiling State v. Stancill ................... 412 Spring Lakes ................... 413 HEADNOTE INDEX APPEAL AND ERROR Abandonment of issues—lack of argument on appeal—prior bad acts—On appeal from a conviction for first-degree sex offense with a child, defendant aban- doned his argument that the trial court should have excluded evidence that he pre- viously observed the victim through a hole in the wall taking showers. Although defendant challenged the basis for the trial court’s ruling, he offered no specific argu- ment as to why that prior act was inadmissible under Evidence Rule 404(b) or should have been excluded under Rule 403. State v. Godfrey, 264. Access to sealed court file—standard of review—de novo—In an action by a newspaper seeking public access to a sealed court file pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 1-72.1 and in which the newspaper asserted multiple constitutional claims, the Court of Appeals determined that the correct standard of review on appeal was de novo. Doe v. Doe, 68. Appealability—interlocutory order—arbitration—An appeal from an order compelling arbitration was dismissed as interlocutory where plaintiff did not dem- onstrate that a substantial right would be lost if her appeal was not heard. Although plaintiff attempted to distinguish controlling precedent on the basis of a difference between North Carolina’s Revised Uniform Arbitration Act (NC-RUAA) and the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), there was no reason that the substantial right analysis would be any different under the FAA versus the NC-RUAA. Spencer v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, 219. Interlocutory orders—substantial right—right to a jury trial—ultimate fac- tual issue—An interlocutory order in a boundary dispute affected a substantial right and was immediately appealable where plaintiffs had demanded a jury trial and the trial court’s order effectively mooted all of plaintiffs’ claims by ruling on the ultimate factual issue of the location of the boundary line, without a jury trial. Ayscue v. Griffin, 1. Mootness—temporary order—expiration—The question of whether the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant temporary child custody in a Domestic Violence Prevention Order was moot. The order expired more than one month before the mat- ter was heard by the Court of Appeals. Martin v. Martin, 173. Preservation of issues—denial of motion for DNA testing—Defendant pre- served for appellate review the denial of his motion for post-conviction DNA testing. N.C.G.S. § 15A-270.1 explicitly states that the defendant may appeal an order denying the defendant’s motion for DNA testing, including by an interlocutory appeal. State v. Byers, 231. Preservation of issues—Fourth Amendment—intrusion of officers—revoca- tion of implied license—In a prosecution for multiple drug offenses, defendant failed to preserve for appellate review an argument that signs he placed on his front door operated as a revocation of any implied license for law enforcement officers to iv APPEAL AND ERROR—Continued approach his home, where he did not first raise the argument in the trial court.State v. Piland, 323. Preservation of issues—insufficient argument—The Court of Appeals did not address an argument on appeal where the plaintiff alleged error in a one-paragraph brief and cited no case law or other authorities. Gyger v. Clement, 118. Prior Supreme Court case—virtually identical argument rejected—Where defense counsel conceded that an argument virtually identical to his argument regarding the prohibition against ex post facto laws had been rejected by the North Carolina Supreme Court, defendant’s argument was overruled. State v. Seam, 355. Record—partial transcription—insufficient—The amount and duration of an alimony award was affirmed where the sufficiency of the evidence could not be reviewed due to an incomplete transcript. The trial court made findings on many of the relevant factors and is assumed to have made findings on all of the factors for which evidence was presented. Gilmartin v. Gilmartin, 104. Record—partial transcription—insufficient—The