Delinquent tax returns—fraudulent concealment—Where plaintiff sued defendant Certified Public Accountant and his firm for fraudulent concealment and punitive damages, alleging that defendants failed to properly prepare and file her delinquent tax returns and intentionally deceived her about the status of those returns, plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of both actual and constructive fraud to survive summary judgment. Plaintiff had an ongoing professional relationship with defendants related to the preparation and filing of her delinquent tax returns, and defendants knowingly misrepresented the status of the returns and negotiations with the IRS. Head v. Gould Killian CPA Grp., 371 N.C. 2 (2018) (Author: Chief Justice Paul Newby)

Delinquent tax returns—professional negligence—statute of repose—Where plaintiff sued defendant Certified Public Accountant and his firm for professional negligence, alleging that defendants failed to properly prepare and file her delinquent tax returns and intentionally deceived her about the status of those returns, plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of genuine issues of material fact regarding the scope of the parties' contractual relationship and the time the corresponding last act occurred-and thus when the statute of repose began to run-so that her claim for professional negligence should have survived summary judgment. Head v. Gould Killian CPA Grp., 371 N.C. 2 (2018) (Author: Chief Justice Paul Newby)

Discipline by state board—incorrect finding on appeal by Business Court—not reversible error—Where the Business Court affirmed the final decision of the N.C. State Board of Certified Public Accountant Examiners that found petitioners had violated rules and standards promulgated by the Board and that suspended the accounting firm's registration, the Supreme Court agreed with petitioners that the Business Court erred in finding that their failure to object to testimony from an expert witness before the Board constituted a waiver of petitioners' right to raise this objection on appeal. This error, however, did not affect the result of the case, and therefore it was not reversible. In re Johnson, 371 N.C. 53 (2018) (Author: Justice Barbara Jackson)

Discipline by state board—petitioners' refusal to provide records—substantial evidence to support findings—Where petitioners-a Certified Public Accountant and her firm-allegedly failed to fulfill the terms of a peer review contract by failing to pay for the peer review, and the N.C. State Board of Certified Public Accountant Examiners revoked the firm's registration for three years or until petitioners fulfilled the terms of the peer review contract, the Supreme Court rejected petitioners' argument that the Board lacked substantial evidence to support the finding that petitioners failed to comply with Government Auditing Standards and generally accepted auditing standards. The Board was unable to review petitioners' full work papers only because petitioners refused to provide them. It would undermine a fundamental purpose of a regulatory board for a regulated party to be able to escape review and disciplinary action by refusing to provide records solely in its possession. In re Johnson, 371 N.C. 53 (2018) (Author: Justice Barbara Jackson)

Failure to pay for peer review—discipline by state board—constitutional—Where petitioners-a Certified Public Accountant and her firm-allegedly failed to fulfill the terms of a peer review contract by failing to pay for the peer review, and the N.C. State Board of Certified Public Accountant Examiners revoked the firm's registration for three years or until petitioners fulfilled the terms of the peer review contract, the Supreme Court rejected petitioners' argument that the Board's decision violated the N.C. Constitution by exceeding the judicial powers reasonably necessary for the agency to serve its legislative purpose. The discipline imposed by the Board, based on its determination that petitioners had entered into a peer review contract but then failed to perform the terms of that contract, was consistent with its rules and regulations and appropriate to the purpose of the agency, guided by the standards established by the General Assembly and subject to judicial review. In re Johnson, 371 N.C. 53 (2018) (Author: Justice Barbara Jackson)

Father's consent—unnecessary—failure to show support —An adoption should have proceeded without the consent of the father where he did not demonstrate through an objectively verifiable record that he made the statutorily required reasonable and consistent payments for the support of the minor child before the adoption petition was filed. The father had sporadically put money into a lockbox but did not keep records.Justice Beasley dissenting.Justices Hudson and Morgan join in this dissenting opinion. In re Adoption of C.H.M., 371 N.C. 22 (2018) (Author: Chief Justice Paul Newby)

Standing to file petition—not limited to director of county DSS where juvenile resides or is found—The Court of Appeals erred by holding that the Mecklenburg County Department of Social Services, Youth and Family Division, lacked standing when it filed a petition alleging that juvenile A.P., who was living in Cabarrus County, was abused, neglected, or dependent. The legislature did not intend to limit the class of parties who may invoke the court's subject matter jurisdiction in juvenile adjudication actions only to directors of county departments of social services in the county where the juvenile at issue resides or is found. In re A.P., 371 N.C. 14 (2018) (Author: Justice Cheri Beasley)

—sentencing—juveniles—life without parole—not arbitrary or vague—There was no basis for concluding that the absence of a requirement of aggravating circumstances rendered the sentencing process for juveniles convicted of first-degree murder (other than felony murder) arbitrary or vague where defendant. was sentenced to life without parole. The statutory provisions require consideration of the factors found in Miller, which indicates that life wioiut parole should be exceedingly rare for juveniles. State v. James, 371 N.C. 77 (2018) (Author: Justice Sam Ervin, IV)

Ex post facto—juvenile sentencing for murder—revised statute—There was no ex post fact violation in the sentencing of a juvenile for murder where the revised statute under which the juvenile was sentenced required a choice between life imprisonment, the original sentence, or a lesser punishment. State v. James, 371 N.C. 77 (2018) (Author: Justice Sam Ervin, IV)

Acceptance of benefits—impact fees—In a case involving impact fees, the Town's contention that plaintiffs' claims were barred by the doctrine of estoppel by the acceptance of benefits was rejected where it did not appear that plaintiff received any benefit from the payment of the challenged water and sewer impact fees that they would not have otherwise been entitled to receive. Quality Built Homes Inc. v. Town of Carthage, 371 N.C. 60 (2018) (Author: Justice Sam Ervin, IV)

Failure to issue ruling or respond in a timely manner—public reprimand—Where a district court judge failed to issue a ruling for more than two years on a motion for attorney's fees and expenses, failed to respond or delayed responding to party and attorney inquiries on the status of the pending ruling, and failed to respond in a timely manner to communications from the Judicial Standards Commission's investigator regarding the status of the ruling, the Supreme Court ordered that the judge be publicly reprimanded for violations of Canons 1, 2A, 3A, and 3B of the N.C. Code of Judicial Conduct. In re Henderson, 371 N.C. 45 (2018) (Author: Justice Per Curiam)

First degree murder—juvenile—no Eight Amendment violation—There was no merit to a juvenile first degree murder defendant's argument that the Eight Amendment was violated by a North Carolina sentencing scheme for that did not begin with a presumption in favor of life with parole, and that did not require that a jury find the existence of one or more aggravating circumstances or a finding that the juvenile was irreparably corrupt. The statutory provisions provide sufficient guidance to allow a sentencing judge to make a proper, non-arbitrary determination of sentence. State v. James, 371 N.C. 77 (2018) (Author: Justice Sam Ervin, IV)

Juvenile—first-degree murder—The relevant language in N.C.G.S. §§ 15A-1340.19A to 15A-19D, read contextually and in its entirety, did not create a presumption that juveniles convicted of first-degree murder on a theory other and felony murder should be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole rather than life with parole. The two choices are treated as alternative sentencing options, with the selection to be made on the basis of an analysis of all the relevant facts and circumstances in light of Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012). State v. James, 371 N.C. 77 (2018) (Author: Justice Sam Ervin, IV)

Impact fees—three year statute of limitations—Plaintiffs' claims against a town arising from impact fees accrued when the fees where paid, not when the ordinance was passed, and the three-year statute of limitations in N.C.G.S. 1-52(2) was applicable. Their last payment was more than three years after their last payment and their claim was barred. Quality Built Homes Inc. v. Town of Carthage, 371 N.C. 60 (2018) (Author: Justice Sam Ervin, IV)