Medicaid reimbursements—prepayment review—constitutional violations alleged—no genuine issue of material fact—In a complex business case arising from the decision of the N.C. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to place a medical services company on Medicaid reimbursement prepayment review for alleged overbilling practices, the trial court correctly granted summary judgment to DHHS where the company's evidentiary forecast did not demonstrate any genuine issue of material fact with regard to its substantive due process and equal protection violation claims. The agency's decision was not arbitrary and capricious where its reasons for placing the company on prepayment review were rationally related to a legitimate government interest of combating Medicaid fraud and where there was no evidence that DHHS treated the company differently from other personal care providers similarly situated. Halikierra Cmty. Servs. LLC v. N.C. Dep't of Health & Hum. Servs. , No. 59A23 (N.C. Mar. 22, 2024) (Author: Justice Allison Riggs)

Easement—claim by owner of dominant tenement—hostile possession—summary judgment—In a property dispute between neighbors, where a husband and wife (defendants) owned adjoining tracts of land, the first of which contained defendants' home and the second of which benefited from a 30-foot-wide easement containing a driveway and a strip of land east of the driveway leading up to plaintiffs' property, the trial court erred in denying summary judgment to defendants on their claim for adverse possession of the land between the driveway and plaintiffs' property line. Defendants' forecast of evidence–considered in the light most favorable to defendants–created a genuine issue of material fact concerning the hostility element of their adverse possession claim, with the evidence showing that: defendants mistakenly believed that they owned the disputed land; defendants made permanent improvements on the land that went beyond what the easement allowed, thereby rebutting the presumption of permissive use; and, although none of plaintiffs' predecessors in interest ever objected to defendants' use or improvement of the disputed tract, their silence did not amount to a grant of permission for such use or improvement. Hinman v. Cornett , No. 219A23 (N.C. May. 23, 2024) (Author: Justice Allison Riggs)

Criminal conversation—unidentified lover—summary judgment—evidence of post-separation dating relationship—mere conjecture—The trial court properly granted summary judgment for defendant on plaintiff's claims for alienation of affection and criminal conversation, where plaintiff's wife began a romantic relationship with defendant about three months after separating from plaintiff and over a year after admitting to plaintiff that, while they were still married, she had had sexual intercourse with an unidentified coworker. Although evidence of post-separation conduct may be used at the summary judgment phase to corroborate evidence of pre-separation conduct, plaintiff's evidence regarding the pre-separation affair between his wife and the unidentified coworker did not give rise to anything more than "mere conjecture" that defendant was that same coworker; consequently, the evidence failed to support the malice prong of plaintiff's alienation of affection claim and the sexual intercourse element of his criminal conversation claim. Beavers v. McMican , No. 294A22 (N.C. Mar. 22, 2024) (Author: Justice Anita Earls)

Appeal to Supreme Court—based on Court of Appeals dissent—new theory asserted in dissent—review declined—In an appeal to the Supreme Court based on a dissent from the Court of Appeals, where a business sought to overturn the trial court's order upholding a towing company's statutory lien on one of the business's trucks and authorizing the sale of the truck, the Supreme Court declined to review the dissent's theory of the case–that the towing company unlawfully converted the truck for personal use and, therefore, the lien should have been reduced based on the truck's loss in fair market value–because it was not first raised and argued by the parties and addressing it would require access to evidence that no party presented at trial and findings of fact that the trial court never made. Bottoms Towing & Recovery, LLC v. Circle of Seven, LLC , No. 189A22 (N.C. Aug. 23, 2024) (Author: Justice Richard Dietz)

Interlocutory order—failure to show grounds for appellate review—release of underlying claim—The Supreme Court dismissed the fifth appeal from an interlocutory order entered by the Business Court where, as was the case in his previous four appeals, appellant failed to demonstrate grounds for appellate review and instead advanced arguments that were unrelated to the Court's jurisdiction. Notably, the arguments that appellant did raise neither addressed the opposing party's main argument in the underlying action nor cured the fact that appellant had already released his claim giving rise to the action. The Court also cautioned appellant that he could face sanctions in the future if he continued to flout the Rules of Appellate Procedure and show disregard for the Court's time and resources. In re Se. Eye Ctr. , No. 192A23 (N.C. May. 23, 2024) (Author: Justice Per Curiam)

Mootness—denial of habeas petition—review of lower appellate court decision—clarification required—The Supreme Court exercised its jurisdiction pursuant to the North Carolina Constitution to review the decision of the Court of Appeals regarding the denial of a habeas corpus petition because, although the case was moot, review was necessary to clarify the scope of the writ of habeas corpus and the public interest exception and to resolve conflicting statements of law between the lower appellate court's opinion and established law. State v. Daw , No. 174PA21 (N.C. Aug. 23, 2024) (Author: Justice Phil Berger, Jr.)

Preservation of issues—criminal trial—judge's failure to follow statutory mandate—no preliminary prejudice analysis required—The Court of Appeals properly reviewed defendant's appeal from his convictions for first-degree murder, murder of an unborn child, and robbery with a dangerous weapon after concluding that his main argument–that the trial court failed to exercise its discretion under N.C.G.S. § 15A-1233 when it denied the jury's request to review partial transcripts of witness testimony–was preserved for appellate review despite defendant's failure to raise the issue at trial. The statutory mandate placed upon the trial court in section 15A-1233 automatically preserved defendant's argument, and the Court of Appeals was not required to condition appellate review on a showing that the trial court's alleged error was prejudicial–a step that would require reviewing the issue on the merits before determining whether it was even preserved. State v. Vann , No. 157PA22 (N.C. May. 23, 2024) (Author: Justice Phil Berger, Jr.)

Right to appeal—denial of motion to suppress—entry of guilty plea—no plea agreement—notice of intent to appeal not required—Where defendant entered an open guilty plea–one that was not made as part of a plea agreement–he was not required to provide notice of his intent to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress or his judgment prior to entry of the plea. The Supreme Court declined to expand the scope of the rule stated in State v. Reynolds, 298 N.C. 380 (1979) (concluding that a defendant who wants to appeal a suppression motion denial pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15A-979(b) must give notice of his or her intent to appeal prior to pleading guilty as part of a negotiated plea agreement, or else the right to appeal is waived) to include open pleas. State v. Jonas , No. 433PA21 (N.C. May. 23, 2024) (Author: Justice Allison Riggs)

With a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury—jury instructions—castle doctrine—proportionality of force used—improper—In a prosecution for assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury arising from defendant having shot the victim after the victim entered defendant's front porch, the trial court erred by instructing the jury that defendant did "not have the right to use excessive force" when defending her home, even under the castle doctrine. Based on the statutory formulation of the castle doctrine, which provides that a lawful occupant of a home who uses deadly force against an intruder is presumed to have had a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm, the jury could not consider the proportionality of defendant's force unless it found that: (1) defendant was not entitled to the presumption of reasonable fear, or (2) defendant qualified for the presumption to apply, but the State adequately rebutted the presumption. Instead of granting defendant a new trial, the matter was remanded to the Court of Appeals with instructions to analyze whether the trial court's error was prejudicial. State v. Phillips , No. 281A23 (N.C. Aug. 23, 2024) (Author: Justice Phil Berger, Jr.)

Abuse and neglect—visitation—dispositional evidence and factual findings—principles for appellate review—In an abuse and neglect matter involving four biological parents (a mother and three men who each fathered one of her children), the Supreme Court reversed a decision by the Court of Appeals, which after prior remand from the higher court reversed the trial court's dispositional order denying visitation to all but one parent, and remanded the case directly to the trial court for any further proceedings. In doing so, the Supreme Court reiterated the following principles: on appeal, dispositional findings of fact are reviewed for whether they are supported by competent evidence; the Juvenile Code permits trial courts to consider hearsay evidence at disposition hearings; here, the trial court was not required to make specific findings for each parent regarding their parental fitness or any conduct inconsistent with their parental rights before determining whether visitation was in the children's best interest; because the issue of each parent's constitutionally protected parental status was not raised at trial, it could not be addressed on appeal; both the evidence and the unchallenged factual findings supported the trial court's disposition; and the trial court was not required to enter separate factual findings and legal conclusions for each parent before making its disposition. In re A.J.L.H. , No. 35PA21-2 (N.C. Jun. 28, 2024) (Author: Justice Tamara Barringer)

Guardianship—awarded to in-state relative—before home study of out-of-state relative was completed—After adjudicating respondent-mother's three minor children as neglected and dependent, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded guardianship to the children's great aunt, who lived in North Carolina, without waiting for the completion of a home study of an alternative relative placement–the children's grandmother, who lived in Georgia–pursuant to the Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children (ICPC). Neither the ICPC nor N.C.G.S. § 7B-903(a1) require a trial court to wait for the resolution of a home study to rule out placement with an out-of-state relative if the court concludes that an in-state relative is willing and able to provide proper care and supervision and that placement with the in-state relative is in the children's best interests. Further, in this case, the trial court made findings of fact that supported awarding guardianship to the great aunt, including that she had provided the children a safe, loving, and stable home for almost three years. In re K.B. , No. 212A23 (N.C. May. 23, 2024) (Author: Justice Allison Riggs)

Neglect and dependency—adjudication order—steps for reviewing on appeal—sufficiency of findings and evidence—In a neglect and dependency matter, where the parties agreed on appeal that many of the trial court's adjudicatory findings of fact were based on inadmissible hearsay and should therefore be disregarded, the Supreme Court reiterated the proper steps for reviewing an adjudication order on appeal after disregarding unsupported findings: first, the appellate court must examine whether the remaining findings of fact support the trial court's conclusions of law; then, if those findings do not support the trial court's conclusions, the appellate court must examine whether the record contains sufficient evidence that could support the necessary findings. Here, the trial court's remaining findings did not support its legal conclusions, but the record contained clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that could have supported the necessary findings, which required vacating the adjudication order and remanding the matter to the trial court to enter a new order. In re A.J. , No. 206PA23 (N.C. Aug. 23, 2024) (Author: Justice Richard Dietz)

Class certification—inconsistent definitions of class—further issues for review on remand—In a class action lawsuit arising from an allegedly deceptive promotional flyer that a car dealership sent to plaintiffs–who were led to believe that they had won either a large cash prize or a free car when, in fact, they had won only two dollars–the trial court's class certification order was vacated because of an internal inconsistency in the order that precluded meaningful appellate review. Specifically, the court's order defined the prospective class in one way–as individuals who called the hotline listed on the flyer and then went to the car dealership to claim their prize–when analyzing the certification criteria, but then defined the class differently–as individuals who went to the car dealership to claim the prize regardless of whether they called the hotline–when certifying the class. The matter was remanded with additional instructions for the trial court to determine whether any conflicts of interest existed within the proposed class and whether any potential inefficiencies existed that would render class certification inappropriate–two issues that could only be resolved after the court settled on one definition of the class. Surgeon v. TKO Shelby, LLC , No. 198A22 (N.C. Mar. 22, 2024) (Author: Justice Richard Dietz)

Effective assistance of counsel—trial counsel—right to testify at trial—appellate counsel—Anders brief—motion for appropriate relief—The denial of a criminal defendant's motion for appropriate relief (MAR) was affirmed where defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) lacked merit. With respect to his first IAC claim, the record did not support defendant's argument that his trial counsel had neither informed him of his right to testify at trial nor allowed him to testify despite his desire to do so; rather, the trial court's colloquy with defendant revealed that defendant was aware of his right to testify, and nothing in the record suggested that defendant intended to exercise that right. With respect to defendant's second IAC claim, defendant's appellate counsel–who filed an Anders brief in defendant's appeal–was not ineffective for declining to argue that the trial court erred in limiting the testimony of defendant's expert witness, since defendant's MAR failed to demonstrate that the court abused its discretion in limiting that testimony. State v. Walker , No. 202PA22 (N.C. Mar. 22, 2024) (Author: Justice Tamara Barringer)

North Carolina—direct constitutional claims—colorable—selective enforcement of emergency executive order—State's sovereign immunity overcome—In a dispute between the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and a racetrack owner, who publicly criticized and refused to comply with the governor's executive order prohibiting "mass gatherings" during the COVID-19 pandemic, the trial court properly denied the State's motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity where the counterclaims brought by defendants (the racetrack and its owner) adequately alleged colorable constitutional claims under the Fruits of Their Labor Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the North Carolina Constitution sufficient to pierce the State's sovereign immunity. Specifically, defendants alleged that: the governor singled out defendants by pressuring the local sheriff to arrest the racetrack owner and, when the sheriff refused, ordering DHHS officials to shut down the racetrack as a health hazard; the governor took these actions to punish the racetrack owner rather than to address an actual health hazard at the racetrack; and DHHS officials did not take similar actions against other large outdoor venues whose owners did not openly criticize the emergency executive order. Kinsley v. Ace Speedway Racing, Ltd. , No. 280PA22 (N.C. Aug. 23, 2024) (Author: Justice Richard Dietz)

North Carolina—direct constitutional claims—condemnation of plaintiffs' properties—adequate state law remedy—In an action raising direct claims under the state constitution ("Corum claims"), in which plaintiffs alleged that defendant city violated their rights to equal protection and substantive due process by condemning plaintiffs' properties and marking them for demolition, the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the claims even though plaintiffs had not exhausted their administrative remedies first. Exhaustion of administrative remedies does not dictate a court's jurisdiction over direct constitutional claims, but instead speaks to an element of this type of claim: whether an adequate state law remedy exists for the constitutional harm alleged. Further, in determining the availability of an adequate state law remedy, plaintiffs' equal protection and due process claims could not be lumped together, since each claim involved different constitutional rights, raised different injuries, and envisioned different modes of relief. Askew v. City of Kinston , No. 55A23 (N.C. Jun. 28, 2024) (Author: Justice Anita Earls)

North Carolina—Fines and Forfeitures Clause—interlocal agreement—"clear proceeds"—fines from red light camera enforcement program—A local act implementing a city's red light camera enforcement program and authorizing an interlocal agreement–which laid out a cost-sharing framework for funding the program–between the city and its county's school board did not violate the Fines and Forfeitures Clause of the North Carolina Constitution (Art. IX, section 7), where the board received all of the fines collected under the program and then reimbursed the city for two main expenses: the fee for the private company hired to install the cameras, maintain them, and process captured violations; and the salary of an officer hired to review the recorded evidence and approve citations. Through this framework, the city recouped only the "reasonable costs of collection," and therefore the board retained the "clear proceeds" of collected red light penalties as that term is defined under the Fines and Forfeitures Clause. Fearrington v. City of Greenville , No. 89PA22 (N.C. May. 23, 2024) (Author: Justice Anita Earls)

North Carolina—right to a speedy trial—convictions set aside—adequacy of remedy—Where plaintiff's criminal convictions were vacated as a remedy for the State having violated plaintiff's constitutional right to a speedy trial, plaintiff was not entitled to additional relief in the form of money damages, which he sought in a private action pursuant to Corum v. Univ. of N.C., 330 N.C. 761 (1992), because Corum claims are reserved solely for instances in which a plaintiff has no other forum in which to seek redress for a constitutional violation. Where plaintiff had an opportunity to present and have his constitutional claim heard, and was given an adequate state remedy, the trial court properly granted summary judgment against plaintiff in his action against the State and the officials involved in his criminal prosecution. The Supreme Court modified and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision where, although the latter court correctly upheld the trial court's order, its reliance on a federal case rather than Corum to reach its conclusion was expressly disavowed. Washington v. Cline , No. 148PA14-2 (N.C. Mar. 22, 2024) (Author: Justice Richard Dietz)

Covenant of good faith and fair dealing—consumer agreement—unilateral changes—arbitration amendment—relation back to original contract—contract not rendered illusory—A credit union's unilateral changes, with notice, to a standard membership contract (which contained a change-of-terms provision) to require arbitration for certain disputes and to waive members' right to file a class action suit were enforceable because they did not violate the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in contracts where the changes reasonably related to the universe of terms, including those that related to dispute resolution, that existed in the original contract. Further, the change-of-terms provision that permitted unilateral modifications did not render the contract illusory since the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing acted as a sufficient check on the credit union's power to modify the contract. Finally, a member's argument that the arbitration amendment was unenforceable without her mutual assent had no merit where she gave her assent to the credit union's ability to make changes with notice when she entered into the original contract that contained the change-of-terms provision. Canteen v. Charlotte Metro Credit Union , No. 10A23 (N.C. May. 23, 2024) (Author: Justice Phil Berger, Jr.)

Motion for appropriate relief—standard of review—case overruled—In an appeal from the denial of a criminal defendant's motion for appropriate relief (MAR), in which defendant asserted that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and in his prior appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the standard of review for MARs laid out in N.C.G.S. § 15A-1420(c) while overruling the standard set forth in [i/]State v. Allen, 378 N.C. 286 (2021), which stated that the factual allegations contained in a defendant's MAR should be reviewed in the light most favorable to the defendant. State v. Walker , No. 202PA22 (N.C. Mar. 22, 2024) (Author: Justice Tamara Barringer)

Motion to disqualify district attorney's office—actual conflict of interest—victim's role as county manager irrelevant—In a trial for cyberstalking and making harassing phone calls, the trial court improperly granted defendant's motion to disqualify the entire district attorney's (DA's) office from prosecuting him where defendant argued that the victim's position as the county manager–whose duties included superintending county courthouses and proposing the county's annual budget, which included expenses for the DA's office–created a conflict of interest. In the context of criminal prosecutions, an "actual conflict" only exists if a prosecutor in a criminal case once represented the defendant in another matter and, by virtue of that attorney-client relationship, obtained confidential information that could be used to the defendant's detriment at trial. Thus, the trial court's office-wide disqualification of the DA's office was improper where defendant did not offer evidence of such a conflict with the DA or with any of the twenty assistant DAs serving under him. State v. Giese , No. 309PA22 (N.C. May. 23, 2024) (Author: Justice Anita Earls)

Prosecutor's closing argument—child rape trial—defendant's sexual history—not grossly improper—In defendant's trial for multiple counts each of rape of a child and sex offense with a child, a prosecutor's closing argument was not so grossly improper as to require the trial court to intervene ex mero motu. First, the prosecutor's reference to a sexual encounter defendant had with an adult girlfriend was based on evidence that the Supreme Court held, under a separate analysis, had not been impermissibly admitted. Second, where the prosecutor insinuated that, based on defendant's statements that he did not use a condom during sex with adult partners, defendant could have gotten the child victim pregnant or infected her with a sexually transmitted disease, although the statement constituted an improper appeal to the jury's emotions, it was an isolated statement that was not so egregious as to require the trial court's intervention on its own initiative. State v. Reber , No. 138A23 (N.C. May. 23, 2024) (Author: Justice Richard Dietz)

Prosecutor's closing statement—self-defense to murder—characterization of defendant's actions as aggressive—no misstatements of law—In defendant's trial for first-degree murder, in which defendant asserted that he was acting in self-defense when he fired his shotgun out through the window of his garage toward attendees of a nearby house party, killing one person, there was no gross impropriety in the prosecutor's closing statement requiring the trial court's intervention where the prosecutor did not misstate the law on self-defense while characterizing certain of defendant's actions as aggressive. At no point did the prosecutor invoke the aggressor doctrine, claim that defendant had a duty to retreat within his home, or disclaim defendant's right to lawfully defend his home. State v. Copley , No. 195A19-2 (N.C. May. 23, 2024) (Author: Justice Anita Earls)

Protest—defamation claim—absolute privilege—broad scope—attaches to the proceeding—The defense of absolute privilege applies broadly to protect from civil defamation liability everyone involved in the preparation or filing of an election protest, since the privilege attaches to the proceeding in which the statements are published, and is not restricted only to those who directly participate in election-protest hearings as a party, counsel, or witness as erroneously concluded by the Court of Appeals. Therefore, plaintiffs' libel suit against defendants for preparing and filing election protests alleging that plaintiffs engaged in illegal double-voting was absolutely barred, since the challenged statements were made in the due course of a quasi-judicial proceeding and were both relevant and pertinent to its subject matter. Bouvier v. Porter , No. 403PA21 (N.C. May. 23, 2024) (Author: Chief Justice Paul Newby)

Condemnation—rights asserted by owner and developer—corollary suits pending—all pleaded issues regarding taking resolved—summary judgment proper—In a condemnation matter, where the property's owner (a condominium association) and a developer (to which the association had granted certain development rights with a set expiration date) asserted rights in the property at the time of the taking by the Department of Transportation (for a temporary construction easement) and, therefore, were both parties to the eminent domain action, the trial court did not err by granting summary judgment to and distributing settlement funds in favor of the developer even though the parties' corollary actions were not yet finalized. All of the issues pleaded in the taking action and argued at the hearing held pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 136-108 had been resolved, including the total amount of just compensation (which the parties settled via consent judgment) and issues related to the parties' relative interests in the taken property. Further, the trial court had discretion under section 136-117 to determine the apportionment of compensation between the parties, including that the developer was entitled to compensation for the loss of development rights, which was in accord with the assessment of both parties' appraisers. Dep't of Transp. v. Bloomsbury Ests., LLC , No. 250PA21-2 (N.C. Aug. 23, 2024) (Author: Justice Allison Riggs)

Action to quiet title—equitable subrogation—applicability—genuine issues of material fact—culpable negligence—In plaintiff bank's declaratory judgment action to quiet title to a home sold under execution (which was held to satisfy a lien of judgment) to the homeowner's daughter–at which point plaintiff's lien was extinguished–where there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the doctrine of equitable subrogation was applicable to provide relief to plaintiff, which had a superior interest in the property to the holder of the lien of judgment, the Court of Appeals erred by concluding that defendants (the homeowner and her daughter) were entitled to summary judgment. On remand, the trial court was instructed to utilize broad discretion to obtain the necessary information to determine whether plaintiff's predecessor-in-interest was culpably negligent in agreeing to refinance the first loan on the property without exercising due diligence to discover the publicly-recorded lien of judgment, and to use all of the facts to balance the equities. MidFirst Bank v. Brown , No. 14PA23 (N.C. May. 23, 2024) (Author: Justice Tamara Barringer)

Hearsay—phone call between murder victim and niece—code name used for defendant—excited utterance exception—In defendant's prosecution for first-degree murder and robbery with a dangerous weapon, evidence that the victim called his niece the night before he was murdered and quickly said "Dianne to the house" before hanging up, which they both knew was a code name for defendant, was not improperly admitted because, although the statement was hearsay, it fell within the excited utterance exception since it was made in circumstances indicating that the victim was startled by the defendant's intention to come to his home (the phone call was hurried and brief, and the victim and defendant had experienced recent conflict in their relationship). State v. Davenport , No. 155PA22 (N.C. Aug. 23, 2024) (Author: Justice Anita Earls)

Murder and robbery trial—defendant's prior incarceration, gang affiliation, and tattoos—plain error analysis—prejudice prong not met—In defendant's prosecution for first-degree murder and robbery with a dangerous weapon, there was no plain error in the admission of evidence regarding defendant's prior incarceration, gang affiliation, and tattoos because, even if the evidence had been excluded, the jury probably would not have reached a different result in light of other evidence consisting of witness statements placing defendant at the scene of the crime and defendant's extrajudicial confession to another inmate that defendant killed the victim for money. State v. Davenport , No. 155PA22 (N.C. Aug. 23, 2024) (Author: Justice Anita Earls)

Other bad acts—child rape trial—plain error analysis—standard for determining prejudice—probable impact—In evaluating whether the admission of portions of defendant's cross-examination testimony–regarding text messages and sexual encounters with an adult girlfriend–during his trial for rape and sexual abuse of a child constituted plain error, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the prejudice prong of the three-factor test for plain error requires an evaluation of whether there is a reasonable probability that, but for the errors complained of, the jury would have returned a different result. In this case, which hinged mostly on witness credibility, where the victim recounted specific details of abuse perpetrated by defendant and where there were issues with defendant's credibility, defendant failed to demonstrate that a different outcome probably would have been reached if the challenged evidence was excluded; therefore, defendant did not meet the standard for showing prejudice and was not entitled to a new trial. State v. Reber , No. 138A23 (N.C. May. 23, 2024) (Author: Justice Richard Dietz)

Rule 412—definition of "sexual behavior"—criminal prosecution—sexual offenses against child—evidence of prior sexual abuse by different perpetrator—In a prosecution for sexual offense with a child by an adult and indecent liberties with a child, the trial court properly excluded evidence of previous sexual abuse of the victim by an abuser other than defendant, where Evidence Rule 412 bars evidence of a victim's "sexual behavior," which is defined as "sexual activity other than the sexual act which is at issue in the indictment on trial." Although Rule 412 does not define "sexual activity," the Rule's plain language indicates that all evidence of a victim's sexual activity other than the sexual act at issue is inadmissible regardless of whether that activity was consensual or nonconsensual. Thus, defendant's argument that the victim's prior sexual abuse did not fall under Rule 412's definition of "sexual behavior" lacked merit. State v. Washington , No. 34PA22 (N.C. May. 23, 2024) (Author: Chief Justice Paul Newby)

Summary denial—final judgment of court of competent jurisdiction—discharge provisions inapplicable—The trial court's summary denial of petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus was proper under the plain and definite language of N.C.G.S. § 17-4 because petitioner was detained by virtue of a final judgment of a court of competent criminal jurisdiction. Despite the unambiguous mandate of section 17-4, the Court of Appeals improperly extended its analysis to consider petitioner's argument that the COVID-19 pandemic created conditions making him eligible for discharge under section 17-33(2), and erroneously concluded that section 17-33(2) provided an exception to the general rule contained in section 17-4(2) for parties detained by virtue of criminal process. However, the discharge provisions in section 17-33 apply only to persons detained by virtue of civil process–which does not include criminal convictions–and do not provide an exception to section 17-4 because they only become relevant after an application to prosecute the writ has been granted and returned and a hearing has been held. State v. Daw , No. 174PA21 (N.C. Aug. 23, 2024) (Author: Justice Phil Berger, Jr.)

Instructions—murder by lying in wait—castle doctrine not properly accounted for—error cured by alternate theory of murder—In defendant's trial for first-degree murder, in which defendant asserted that he was acting in self-defense when he fired his shotgun out through the window of his garage toward attendees of a nearby house party, killing one person, the trial court's instruction on first-degree murder by lying in wait did not properly account for the castle doctrine–a justification for defensive force, about which the jury was also instructed and, if applicable, would act as a shield from criminal culpability–where the trial court instructed the jury that if they found each element of murder by lying in wait, they must find defendant guilty, thereby impermissibly suggesting that the crime eclipses the castle doctrine. However, where the jury also found defendant guilty of first-degree murder by premeditation and deliberation, they necessarily concluded that defendant was not entitled to the castle doctrine defense; therefore, despite the error in the lying in wait instruction, defendant could not demonstrate prejudice that would entitle him to a new trial. State v. Copley , No. 195A19-2 (N.C. May. 23, 2024) (Author: Justice Anita Earls)

Jury instructions—self-defense—defense of habitation—request for aggressor doctrine language—invited error—In defendant's first-degree murder trial, in which defendant asserted that he was acting in self-defense when he fired his shotgun out through the window of his garage toward attendees of a nearby house party, killing one person, the trial court did not err in its jury instructions on the defense of habitation–the pattern jury instruction of which included a provocation exception–or self-defense. Not only did defendant not object to the instructions, but any error regarding the aggressor doctrine–which the court only included as part of the self-defense instruction–was invited error, since defendant specifically requested the aggressor doctrine language. State v. Copley , No. 195A19-2 (N.C. May. 23, 2024) (Author: Justice Anita Earls)

Governmental—speed limit exceeded by police officer—no statutory waiver of immunity—In a negligence and wrongful death action filed against a city and a police officer (defendants) by the estate of a pedestrian who was struck and killed while the officer was driving to the scene of a domestic violence incident, the speed limit exemption in N.C.G.S. § 20-145–under which speed limits do not apply to police officers while chasing or apprehending violators of the law or to other vehicle operators traveling in response to an emergency–did not operate as a statutory waiver of governmental immunity. Section 20-145, with its focus on individual drivers and individual actions and inclusion of non-governmental actors, contained no plain or clear legislative mandate withdrawing immunity from a discrete government body. Est. of Graham v. Lambert , No. 113A22 (N.C. Mar. 22, 2024) (Author: Justice Anita Earls)

Governmental—speed limit exceeded by police officer—official capacity suit—same waiver analysis as for city—In a negligence and wrongful death action filed against a city and a police officer (defendants) by the estate of a pedestrian who was struck and killed while the officer was driving to the scene of a domestic violence incident, where the Court of Appeals' decision was reversed because that court applied the wrong standard of review to the trial court's order denying summary judgment to defendants, the Court of Appeals was instructed on remand to treat the estate's claim against the officer in his official capacity as merged with the claim against the city. Est. of Graham v. Lambert , No. 113A22 (N.C. Mar. 22, 2024) (Author: Justice Anita Earls)

Governmental—waiver by insurance—standard for reviewing summary judgment denial—In a negligence and wrongful death action filed against a city and a police officer (defendants) by the estate of a pedestrian who was struck and killed while the officer was driving to the scene of a domestic violence incident, the Court of Appeals erred by applying the wrong legal standard when it reversed the trial court's order denying summary judgment to defendants. Rather than analyzing whether the evidence raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the city had waived governmental immunity by purchasing liability insurance, the Court of Appeals instead erroneously employed the standard under Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6) (motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim) by focusing on the sufficiency of the complaint to raise the issue of waiver. Est. of Graham v. Lambert , No. 113A22 (N.C. Mar. 22, 2024) (Author: Justice Anita Earls)

Second-degree rape—short-form indictment—sufficiency—effect on trial court's jurisdiction—abrogation of common law pleading rules —A short-form indictment charging defendant with second-degree rape neither contained a fatal defect nor deprived the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction to convict defendant, even though the indictment did not allege that the defendant knew or should have known that the victim was physically helpless during the rape. The Criminal Procedure Act abrogated the common law rule that a court's subject matter jurisdiction in a criminal case depends on the sufficiency of the underlying indictment, as well as the strict common law requirement that an indictment specifically allege every element of an offense–a requirement that the legislature loosened even further by enacting short-form indictments by statute. Instead, a defective indictment only raises jurisdictional concerns when it alleges conduct that does not constitute a crime; meanwhile, indictments containing merely technical, non-jurisdictional defects will not be set aside so long as they give defendants sufficient notice of the crimes charged to prepare a defense and to protect against double jeopardy. Here, the indictment against defendant did allege an actual crime under North Carolina law while also meeting the short-form pleading requirements for second-degree rape (codified in N.C.G.S. § 15-144.1(c)). State v. Singleton , No. 318PA22 (N.C. May. 23, 2024) (Author: Justice Phil Berger, Jr.)

Sexual battery—essential elements—force implied by lack of consent—sufficiency of notice to defendant—The indictment charging defendant with sexual battery was facially valid where it contained sufficient facts to support each essential element of the charged offense, including force, since the allegation that defendant engaged in sexual conduct with the victim without her consent was sufficient to imply that the contact was committed by force, however slight, and was therefore adequate to put defendant on notice of the charge. State v. Stewart , No. 23PA22 (N.C. May. 23, 2024) (Author: Chief Justice Paul Newby)

Sufficiency of indictments—human trafficking—multiple counts per victim—unit of prosecution—Each of four indictments charging defendant with multiple counts of human trafficking per victim over specified periods of time were sufficient to put defendant on notice of each offense because they contained the necessary elements of trafficking pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 14-43.11. Although defendant argued that he could be convicted of only one count per victim, the plain language of the statute makes clear that human trafficking is not one continuous offense, that a separate charge may be attached to each violation regardless of whether the same victim is involved, and that the offense is committed when a defendant "obtains" a victim–one of the essential elements of the offense–by any one of the alternative means listed in the statute. State v. Applewhite , No. 39A22 (N.C. Aug. 23, 2024) (Author: Justice Tamara Barringer)

Homeowner's fire insurance—notice of cancellation—statutory requirements—actual notice sufficient—Where plaintiff homeowners had actual notice that their provisional homeowner's fire insurance policy had been cancelled–based, in part, on evidence that plaintiffs received, signed, and cashed a check from defendant insurance company listing the policy number and refunding plaintiffs their excess premium–and, therefore, had a reasonable opportunity to procure other insurance before their house burned down two months later, the Supreme Court found it unnecessary to address the broader question of whether defendant's manner of notice–by mailing a letter of cancellation to plaintiffs that they claimed not to have received–was sufficient to meet the requirements of N.C.G.S. § 58-44-16(f)(10). Ha v. Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co. , No. 312A19-2 (N.C. Aug. 23, 2024) (Author: Justice Anita Earls)

Discipline—improper phone call to magistrate—to demand bond reduction for her son—closing down administrative courtroom without permission—suspension—On the basis of two incidents, a district court judge was suspended without pay for 120 days for conduct in violation of Canons 1, 2A, 2B, 3A(3), 3A(5), 3B(1), and 3C of the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct and for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute (N.C.G.S. § 7A-376(b)). In the first incident, the judge called a magistrate's office, used her judicial title to ask if a particular criminal defendant had been placed into custody without disclosing that that defendant was her son, and then yelled at the magistrate while demanding a bond reduction for her son based on inaccurate information. In the second incident, the judge–while on notice of the disciplinary charges filed against her based on the first incident–demanded, without first notifying her chief district court judge, that an assistant district attorney and a presiding magistrate close their administrative courtroom for her own use despite an active administrative order mandating that the courtroom remain open; notably, the judge's conduct caused more than one hundred cases to be continued. In re Foster , No. 347A23 (N.C. Mar. 22, 2024) (Author: Justice Per Curiam)

Custodial law enforcement agency recordings—media request—release—initiation by petition versus complaint—legislative intent—In an action seeking the release of custodial law enforcement agency recordings (CLEAR) of a protest march pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 132-1.4A(g), media petitioners were not required to file a civil complaint rather than a petition to invoke the trial court's jurisdiction. Where the language in subsection (g) instructing anyone seeking release of CLEAR to file an "action" was not clear and unambiguous, statutory interpretation principles supported the conclusion that legislative intent allowed for such an action to be initiated by petition. In re McClatchy Co. , No. 29A23 (N.C. May. 23, 2024) (Author: Justice Trey Allen)

Personal—service of process—waiver—post-judgment motion to exempt property—general appearance —In a complex business case, in which defendant did not appear until after the trial court had already entered its judgment, at which point she filed a motion to claim exempt property pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 1C-1603, the Business Court properly denied defendant's subsequent motion to set aside both the entries of default against her and the order of summary judgment for plaintiff–pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 60(b)–where defendant argued that the Business Court lacked personal jurisdiction over her because she had not been served with process. By moving to claim exempt property after judgment without also raising her objections to personal jurisdiction and the sufficiency of service of process, defendant made a general appearance in the action and therefore waived those objections. Slattery v. Appy City, LLC , No. 218A22 (N.C. Mar. 22, 2024) (Author: Chief Justice Paul Newby)

Standing—challenge to monument removal—breach of contract alleged—legal injury—In a dispute over a city's decision to remove a monument from public property, although the Court of Appeals properly upheld the trial court's order dismissing plaintiff historical society's claims (for breach of contract, a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and a declaratory judgment), its decision was modified and affirmed. The Court of Appeals erroneously concluded that plaintiff lacked standing under Rule 12(b)(1) to bring its breach of contract claim–which was a different basis for dismissal than that found by the trial court (failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6))–where plaintiff sufficiently alleged a legal injury to give rise to standing for that claim by alleging that a valid contract existed and that the contract had been breached. The Court of Appeals properly upheld the dismissal of plaintiff's remaining claims for lack of standing, and plaintiff abandoned any argument regarding the merits of its breach of contract claim. Soc'y for the Hist. Pres. of the Twenty-sixth N.C. Troops, Inc. v. City of Asheville , No. 123PA22 (N.C. Mar. 22, 2024) (Author: Justice Phil Berger, Jr.)

Standing—taxpayer—constitutional challenge—local red light camera enforcement program—remedies permitted—After the legislature passed a local act implementing a city's red light camera enforcement program and authorizing an interlocal agreement–which laid out a cost-sharing framework for funding the program–between the city and its county's school board, two individuals (plaintiffs) who received citations and were each fined $100.00 for running red lights had taxpayer standing to challenge the local act's constitutionality. First, plaintiffs effectively sued on the school board's behalf by alleging that, under the Fines and Forfeitures Clause of the state constitution, the board was entitled to a larger share of red light penalties than what it retained under the interlocal agreement. Second, plaintiffs adequately alleged a "direct injury" where they argued that at least part of the $100.00 penalty they paid to the city was unconstitutionally rerouted away from the local school board. Third, plaintiffs sufficiently alleged a "demand" on the board to protect its interests and the board's refusal to do so by challenging plaintiffs' claims. Finally, plaintiffs' taxpayer standing permitted them to pursue injunctive and declaratory relief, but not money damages (specifically, a refund of the fines). Fearrington v. City of Greenville , No. 89PA22 (N.C. May. 23, 2024) (Author: Justice Anita Earls)

Request for transcript of witness testimony—trial court's discretion—ambiguous language by court—evidence in record—At a trial for first-degree murder, murder of an unborn child, and robbery with a dangerous weapon, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the jury's request for partial transcripts of testimony–from defendant, the lead investigator in the case, and the medical examiner–after stating that "[w]e're not–we can't provide a transcript as to that." Defendant had the burden on appeal to show that the court misunderstood and failed to exercise its discretion under N.C.G.S. § 15A-1233(a) to grant the jury's request, since the court's language of "we're not" juxtaposed with "we can't" was ambiguous and therefore insufficient to overcome the "presumption of regularity" afforded to trial courts on appellate review. Defendant failed to meet this burden where the record showed that the court: granted the jury's other requests to review evidence, even partially granting the request at issue by allowing the jury to see the medical examiner's report; provided other evidence that the jury did not request but that the court believed would be helpful; and, when denying the request for the transcripts, stated that it was the jury's duty to recall the testimony. State v. Vann , No. 157PA22 (N.C. May. 23, 2024) (Author: Justice Phil Berger, Jr.)

Implied warranty of habitability—corroded gas line—notice requirement—In an action against a landlord (defendant) by his tenant (plaintiff) who was severely injured in a gas explosion that was caused by a corroded gas line to a furnace, the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendant on plaintiff's claim for breach of implied warranty of habitability, because there was no evidence that defendant knew or should have known about the need for any repairs to keep the property in a fit and habitable condition, where plaintiff never informed defendant that the bathroom floor directly over the furnace had a large hole through which water leaked or that a smell of natural gas had been detected in the home, and plaintiff did not ask defendant to make any repairs. Terry v. Pub. Serv. Co. of N.C. , No. 28A23 (N.C. Mar. 22, 2024) (Author: Justice Tamara Barringer)

Residential Rental Agreements Act—corroded gas line—notice requirement—no duty to inspect—In an action against a landlord (defendant) by his tenant (plaintiff) who was severely injured in a gas explosion that was caused by a corroded gas line to a furnace, the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendant on plaintiff's claim that defendant violated the Residential Rental Agreements Act (RRAA), because the RRAA does not include a duty for landlords to regularly inspect rental property and there was no evidence that defendant knew or should have known about the hazardous condition or that there was a violation of the housing code, particularly since plaintiff did not inform defendant about the hole in the bathroom floor directly over the furnace through which water leaked or that a smell of natural gas had been detected in the home. Terry v. Pub. Serv. Co. of N.C. , No. 28A23 (N.C. Mar. 22, 2024) (Author: Justice Tamara Barringer)

Insurance—underinsured motorist coverage—qualification as underinsured highway vehicle—interpolicy stacking—not permitted—In a declaratory judgment action to determine the underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage available to defendant, who owned the at-fault vehicle in a fatal car crash but was not the tortfeasor (his friend was driving the car while defendant rode as a passenger), the trial court erred in granting judgment on the pleadings for defendant and thereby allowing him to recover under both his own policy and his parents' policy. Under the plain language of the Motor Vehicle Safety and Financial Responsibility Act, defendant could not "stack" the UIM coverage limits from his own policy and his parents' policy (which named defendant as an insured but did not cover his car) in order to qualify his car as an "underinsured highway vehicle" for purposes of activating his own policy's UIM coverage and bringing a UIM claim under that policy. Further, because defendant could not "stack" multiple UIM limits, his car did not meet the alternate definition of "underinsured highway vehicle" under the "multiple claimant exception" of the Act (N.C.G.S. § 20-279.21(b)(4)). N.C. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hebert , No. 281A22 (N.C. Mar. 22, 2024) (Author: Chief Justice Paul Newby)

Contributory negligence—fall through attic floor—open and obvious risk—failure to exercise reasonable care—Plaintiff was barred from asserting a negligence claim against defendant, who was the builder of her newly constructed home, for injuries plaintiff suffered when she was walking through her attic, stepped backward off of a plywood walkway without looking, and fell through a scuttle hole that defendant had cut into the attic floor. Plaintiff's failure to exercise reasonable care to avoid an open and obvious risk, particularly given her acknowledgment that she knew the attic floor was unsafe, contributed to her injuries as a matter of law; therefore, summary judgment was properly entered in favor of defendant. Cullen v. Logan Devs., Inc. , No. 155PA23 (N.C. Aug. 23, 2024) (Author: Justice Trey Allen)

Gross negligence—unsafe condition—alleged building code violation—conscious disregard for safety not shown—Plaintiff failed to show that defendant, the builder of her newly constructed home, acted with a bad purpose or reckless indifference to plaintiff's rights by constructing a scuttle hole in the attic floor–through which plaintiff fell to the floor below and severely injured herself–and, therefore, defendant was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's claim of gross negligence. Even if defendant violated the building code by covering over the hole in the lower floor's ceiling with drywall, there was no indication that defendant acted with conscious disregard for plaintiff's safety, and the scuttle hole presented the same amount of risk as the other insulation-covered areas of the attic that were unsafe to walk on. Cullen v. Logan Devs., Inc. , No. 155PA23 (N.C. Aug. 23, 2024) (Author: Justice Trey Allen)

Common law negligence—rental property—corroded gas line—requirement of notice to landlord—In an action against a landlord (defendant) by his tenant (plaintiff) who was severely injured in a gas explosion that was caused by a corroded gas line to a furnace, the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendant on plaintiff's common law negligence claim, because there was no duty for defendant to repair absent actual knowledge or notice given by plaintiff about a dangerous condition on the property. Plaintiff, who had lived in the property for years, knew that there was a hole in the bathroom floor directly above the gas furnace through which water leaked and that the gas company and fire department had come to the home more than once after receiving reports of a gas smell coming from the home, but at no time did plaintiff inform defendant about these issues or request a repair. Terry v. Pub. Serv. Co. of N.C. , No. 28A23 (N.C. Mar. 22, 2024) (Author: Justice Tamara Barringer)

Negligence per se—rental property—corroded gas line—housing code violation—knowledge by landlord required—In an action against a landlord (defendant) by his tenant (plaintiff) who was severely injured in a gas explosion that was caused by a corroded gas line to a furnace, the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendant on plaintiff's claim that defendant was negligent per se for violating the housing code, because there was no evidence that defendant knew or should have known that there was a housing code violation, particularly where plaintiff never informed defendant that the bathroom floor directly over the furnace had a large hole through which water leaked or that a smell of natural gas had been detected in the home. Terry v. Pub. Serv. Co. of N.C. , No. 28A23 (N.C. Mar. 22, 2024) (Author: Justice Tamara Barringer)

Custodial law enforcement agency recordings—media request—release—no eligibility requirement—In an action seeking the release of custodial law enforcement agency recordings (CLEAR) of a protest march, initiated by the filing of a petition by media petitioners pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 132-1.4A(g), the trial court was not required to first find that petitioners were eligible to seek the release of the recordings before granting their request. Unlike subsection (f) of the statute regarding disclosure of CLEAR, which has eligibility requirements, subsection (g) authorizes "any person" seeking release of CLEAR to file an action for a court order. In re McClatchy Co. , No. 29A23 (N.C. May. 23, 2024) (Author: Justice Trey Allen)

Custodial law enforcement agency recordings—media request—release—scope of trial court's authority—In an action seeking the release of custodial law enforcement agency recordings (CLEAR) of a protest march, initiated by the filing of a petition by media petitioners pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 132-1.4A(g), where the trial court found that the release of the requested CLEAR would reveal highly sensitive and personal information but ordered the unredacted release of all CLEAR because it "d[id] not have the authority to [c]ensor this information absent a legitimate or compelling state interest [ ] to do so," the trial court committed reversible error by misunderstanding the scope of its authority. The trial court had broad discretion under the CLEAR statute to place any conditions or restrictions on the release of the recordings, and its failure to acknowledge those options constituted an abuse of discretion. In re McClatchy Co. , No. 29A23 (N.C. May. 23, 2024) (Author: Justice Trey Allen)

With a dangerous weapon—taking of property—sufficiency of evidence—In a prosecution for murder and robbery, the State presented sufficient evidence to survive defendant's motion to dismiss the charge of robbery with a dangerous weapon, including that: the victim's wallet had contained a large sum of money the day before his murder and he had not planned to deposit the money until the next day; the victim's money, wallet, and cell phone were missing from his house where he was killed; the victim's body exhibited defensive wounds from a knife that was presumed to be the murder weapon, which supported the theory that his life was endangered or threatened; witness testimony and cell phone records linked defendant temporally and spatially with the crime; and defendant gave an extrajudicial confession to a fellow inmate that he killed the victim so that he could steal $10,000 from him. Although some of the evidence was circumstantial and the victim's items were never recovered, all of the evidence considered as a whole and in the light most favorable to the State established each element of the offense and that defendant was the perpetrator. State v. Davenport , No. 155PA22 (N.C. Aug. 23, 2024) (Author: Justice Anita Earls)

Local school board—cost-sharing agreement with city—funding for red light camera enforcement program—"clear proceeds" allotted to board—exemption from statutory collection cap—Where the legislature passed a local act implementing a city's red light camera enforcement program and authorizing an interlocal agreement between the city and its county's school board, the funding scheme laid out in the agreement did not violate N.C.G.S. § 115C-437 by allotting to the board less than 90% of the penalties collected under the program. Section 115C-437 promises local school administrative units the "clear proceeds" that they are constitutionally owed under such government programs, defining "clear proceeds" as the full amount of all penalties or fines collected minus the costs of collection, with those costs not to exceed 10% of the amount collected. Nevertheless, the text of the local act authorizing the red light program showed that the legislature intended to exempt the board and the city from having to follow the statutory 10% cap and to allow them to split costs differently. Fearrington v. City of Greenville , No. 89PA22 (N.C. May. 23, 2024) (Author: Justice Anita Earls)

Warrantless search—standing to challenge—reasonable expectation of privacy—material fact questions—findings required—In a prosecution for multiple drug offenses, where the trial court denied defendant's pretrial motion to suppress evidence that was found during a warrantless entry into defendant's uncle's house, but where the ruling was made orally and was never memorialized in a written order with findings of fact, the matter was remanded for the trial court to make the necessary findings of fact regarding the central question of whether defendant had standing to challenge the search of the home. There were material conflicts in the evidence requiring resolution by the trial court, although the record contained evidence that could support a determination that defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the home, despite defendant's statements to law enforcement that he did not live in the home and had no possessions there. Depending on the facts found, the court could either deny the motion to suppress again or grant a new trial. State v. Jordan , No. 124PA22 (N.C. Mar. 22, 2024) (Author: Justice Richard Dietz)

Prior record level—prior federal conviction—substantial similarity to N.C. offense—any error harmless—Any error by the trial court in calculating defendant's prior record level (to which he had not stipulated) without first comparing defendant's prior federal firearms conviction to any state offense was harmless because the record contained sufficient information demonstrating that the federal offense was substantially similar to the North Carolina offense of possession of a firearm by a felon. State v. Applewhite , No. 39A22 (N.C. Aug. 23, 2024) (Author: Justice Tamara Barringer)

Compulsory counterclaim—relation back to filing of complaint—permitted by Rules of Civil Procedure—In a case arising from a motor vehicle accident, the Rules of Civil Procedure did not preclude the relation back of defendant's counterclaim to the date that the complaint was filed, and therefore defendant's counterclaim–which was filed one day after both the filing of plaintiff's complaint and the expiration of the three-year statute of limitations in N.C.G.S. § 1-52(16)–was not time-barred. Since, pursuant to Rule 3, the filing of a compulsory counterclaim does not amount to the commencement of a civil action, counterclaims relate back to the date an action is filed, and the Supreme Court overruled a prior Court of Appeals decision that concluded otherwise. Upchurch v. Harp Builders, Inc. , No. 176PA22 (N.C. Mar. 22, 2024) (Author: Justice Trey Allen)

Fraudulent denial of mortgage modification—date of discovery—lack of diligence—claims time-barred—In an action brought by homeowners (plaintiffs) alleging that a bank (defendant) operated a fraudulent scheme to delay plaintiffs' mortgage modification requests–submitted pursuant to a federal mortgage relief program–while continuing to collect trial period payments from them, which eventually resulted in the foreclosure of their homes, the trial court properly dismissed plaintiffs' claims as being time-barred because the claims were filed outside of the applicable statutory time limits from the date plaintiffs knew or should have known of their injuries and of the alleged fraud. At the latest, the statutes of limitations for all of plaintiffs' claims (both non-fraud and fraud) began to run by the date that each plaintiff lost his or her home. Although plaintiffs argued that they could not have discovered defendant's fraud until later, given the nature and frequency of their interactions with defendant without any progress being made on the modification application process, plaintiffs should have known of defendant's misdeeds through the exercise of ordinary diligence. Taylor v. Bank of America, N.A. , No. 102A20-3 (N.C. Mar. 22, 2024) (Author: Chief Justice Paul Newby)

Compensability—causal connection to workplace injury—"directly related" test—three independent criteria—In a workers' compensation case, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Full Commission awarding compensation to plaintiff for bariatric surgery–based on needing corrective knee surgery after two workplace accidents aggravated a preexisting knee condition, plaintiff was advised that she first needed to have bariatric surgery in order for the knee surgery to be safely performed–and remanded with instructions for the Industrial Commission to apply the proper legal standard regarding compensability for that treatment. The Supreme Court formally endorsed the "directly related" test, developed over the course of several Court of Appeals' cases, under which medical treatment is compensable only if it is directly related to the workplace injury. A sufficiently causal connection may be shown if (1) the workplace injury caused the condition for which treatment is sought, (2) the workplace injury aggravated the condition or caused new symptoms, or (3) the condition did not require treatment prior to the workplace injury but required treatment solely to remedy the workplace injury. Kluttz-Ellison v. Noah's Playloft Preschool , No. 173PA22 (N.C. Mar. 22, 2024) (Author: Justice Richard Dietz)

Ordinance—land use buffer—conflicting text and table—interpretive provision—text controls—A county board of adjustment properly decided against installing a buffer between petitioner's property and a road being built next to an adjacent residential subdivision, where the county's zoning ordinance only required buffers between properties from different zoning districts and both of the properties involved here were in the same "R-1 residential" zoning district. Although the ordinance included a table suggesting that buffers were required based on either the zoning districts or the land uses of the subject and adjacent properties, the ordinance's introductory provision eliminated any internal ambiguity by clarifying that where the text and a table contradicted each other, the text would control. Arter v. Orange Cnty. , No. 229A23 (N.C. Aug. 23, 2024) (Author: Justice Richard Dietz)