Adams Creek Assocs. v. Davis
| Decision Date | 16 January 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. COA16-1080,COA16-1080 |
| Citation | 257 N.C.App. 391,810 S.E.2d 6 |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | ADAMS CREEK ASSOCIATES, Plaintiff, v. Melvin DAVIS & Licurtis Reels, Defendants. |
The Armstrong Law Firm, P.A., by L. Lamar Armstrong, Jr., Smithfield and L. Lamar Armstrong, III, for plaintiff-appellee.
Hairston Lane, P.A., by James E. Hairston, Jr., for defendant-appellants.
Brothers, Melvis Davis and Licurtis Reels (defendants), appeal from an order denying their motions for release from conditional incarceration for civil contempt. Defendants have been previously before this Court twice, unsuccessfully disputing an adjudication that Adams Creek Associates (plaintiff), not defendants, are the rightful owners of 13.25 acres of property along Adams Creek in Carteret County, and have unsuccessfully challenged two orders entered in 2006 and 2011 finding them in contempt of court. See Adams Creek Assocs. v. Davis , 186 N.C. App. 512, 652 S.E.2d 677 (2007), writ denied, disc. rev. denied, temp. stay dissolved, appeal dismissed , 362 N.C. 354, 662 S.E.2d 900 (2008) (" Adams Creek I "); Adams Creek Assocs. v. Davis , 227 N.C. App. 457, 459, 746 S.E.2d 1, 3, disc. rev. denied , 367 N.C. 234, 748 S.E.2d 322 (2013) (" Adams Creek II "). Defendants have been imprisoned for civil contempt since March 2011, after entry of the second contempt order, for failing to comply with court orders requiring them to remove their structures and equipment from Adams Creek Associates’ property, and to cease trespassing upon it. In its 2011 contempt order, the superior court afforded defendants the opportunity to purge their contempt by (1) removing their structures and equipment from the property, and (2) attesting in writing to never again trespass. In this appeal, defendants challenge a 2016 order denying their motions for custodial release.
In 2016, defendants moved for custodial release on the grounds that they were financially unable to comply with the contempt order and that their continued incarceration has become punitive and violates due process. But at the hearing on their motions, defendants testified that even if they were financially able to comply with the property-removal purge condition, they would not do so, and defendants again refused to comply with the attestation purge condition. Defendants’ counsel also argued that because defendants were unable to comply with the order, their continued imprisonment has become a punitive contempt sanction. The trial court denied the motions. In its order, the trial court acknowledged that defendants presented evidence regarding their financial situation and the costs associated with removing the structures and equipment from the property, but refused to make findings on the matter in light of defendants’ refusals to comply with either purge condition. The trial court also concluded that continued incarceration has not become punitive because defendants wield the power to purge their contempt but have recalcitrantly refused.
On appeal, defendants contend the trial court erred by (1) failing to consider their alleged inability to comply with the contempt order, (2) failing to consider whether the purpose of the underlying order could still be served by defendants’ continued incarceration, and (3) improperly concluding that their continued incarceration has not become a punitive criminal contempt. Because defendants were already ordered to be indefinitely committed until they purged their civil contempt when they filed their motions for release, the only issue properly before the trial court was whether defendants were subject to custodial release. Because defendants willfully refused to perform the attestation and admitted they would not perform the property-removal purge condition, even if they could, defendants failed to prove they purged their contempt or satisfy their burden of producing evidence to support their alleged inability-to-comply defense. We hold the trial court did not err in refusing to make futile findings on their alleged inability to comply with the prior order due to defendants’ outright refusals to purge their contempt. Additionally, because the character of relief ordered by the contempt order was incarceration until compliance, and defendants were afforded the opportunity to avoid imprisonment by performing affirmative acts, we hold that the trial court properly concluded their continued incarceration has not become punitive. Accordingly, we affirm.
The litigation relevant to this appeal started in 1982, when Shedrick Reels filed a trespass action against defendant Melvin Davis and Gertrude Reels, the mother of defendant Licurtis Reels. See Adams Creek I , 186 N.C. App. at 516, 652 S.E.2d at 680. In 1984, the trial court entered a summary judgment order adjudicating Shedrick to be the owner of the property and ordering Davis and Reels’ mother not to trespass. See Adams Creek II , 227 N.C. App. at 459, 746 S.E.2d at 3. In 1985, Davis was held in contempt and incarcerated for his refusal to comply with that order, but he was released upon satisfying the purge condition of executing a document acknowledging the property belonged to Shedrick and agreeing not to trespass. Id. In 1985, Shedrick sold the property to Adams Creek Development, which then conveyed the property to plaintiff, Adams Creek Associates, in 1986. Id. at 459–60, 746 S.E.2d at 3.
In 2002, plaintiff filed an action against defendants Davis and Reels, alleging they continued to claim an interest in the property and to trespass upon it. Id. at 460, 746 S.E.2d at 3–4. In 2004, the trial court entered a partial summary judgment order in plaintiff's favor, enjoining defendants from further trespassing and ordering them to remove their structures and equipment from the property ("2004 Summary Judgment Order"). Id. After defendants refused to comply, plaintiff moved to hold them in contempt. Id. After a show cause hearing, the trial court entered an order on 10 August 2006 finding defendants in civil contempt for failing to comply with the 2004 Summary Judgment Order, and in criminal contempt for testifying under oath that they did not intend to obey future orders to stay off the property ("2006 Contempt Order"). Adams Creek I , 186 N.C. App. at 520, 652 S.E.2d at 683.
In 2006, defendants appealed the 2006 Contempt Order. Id. Defendants argued they were improperly found to be in both civil and criminal contempt for the same behavior. Id. at 526–27, 652 S.E.2d at 686–87. We disagreed and held that the trial court properly found defendants to be in both civil and criminal contempt for different acts. Id. at 527, 652 S.E.2d at 687 (). Defendants also attempted to challenge the 2004 Summary Judgment Order, but because their appeal from that order was not properly before us, we refused to address their challenges. Id. at 523, 652 S.E.2d at 684.
In January 2011, plaintiff filed another motion to hold defendants in contempt for continuing to occupy the property and refusing to comply with court orders directing them not to trespass. Adams Creek II , 227 N.C. App. at 461, 746 S.E.2d at 4. After a hearing, the trial court entered an order on 31 March 2011 finding defendants in civil contempt for failing to comply with prior court orders, and ordering that defendants be incarcerated until they purged their contempt, see id. , by (1) presenting evidence they removed their structures and equipment from the property, and (2) attesting in writing to never again trespass ("2011 Contempt Order"). Defendants have remained incarcerated since March 2011.
In 2012, defendants appealed, among other orders, the 2011 Contempt Order and the 2004 Summary Judgment Order. See Adams Creek II , 227 N.C. App. at 462, 746 S.E.2d at 5. On appeal, defendants raised several challenges to the 2004 Summary Judgment Order that awarded plaintiff title to the property, and we affirmed that order. Id. at 462–67, 746 S.E.2d at 5–8. Defendants also challenged the 2011 Contempt Order on the basis that "it relied on the erroneous conclusion that Adams Creek is the rightful owner of the Waterfront Property." Id. at 470, 746 S.E.2d at 10 (footnote omitted). We ascertained that the actual issue presented was whether defendants were improperly found in civil contempt in 2011 for failing to comply with the 2004 Summary Judgment Order, id. at 470, 746 S.E.2d at 10, and concluded that "[b]ased on the evidence presented, the trial court properly found that defendants were able to comply with the 2004 Summary Judgment Order" and "[h]ence, defendants’ noncompliance was willful." Id. at 471, 746 S.E.2d at 11. Accordingly, having affirmed the 2004 Summary Judgment Order and having determined that defendants remained in noncompliance with that order, we affirmed the 2011 Contempt Order. Id.
On 1 June 2015, after having been incarcerated for four and a half years, defendants petitioned our Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus for their custodial release, which was denied three days later on 4 June 2015. See Davis v. Buck , ––– N.C. ––––, 772 S.E.2d 707 (2015).
On 4 May 2016, defendants filed the instant motions in the cause, seeking custodial release based upon their alleged inability to comply with the 2011 Contempt Order, and on the basis that their continued incarceration has become punitive and violates their due process rights. After a hearing at which defendants again refused to perform the attestation purge condition and admitted they would refuse to comply with the property-removal purge condition even if they were able, the trial court entered an order on 13 June 2016 denying their motions. Defendants now appeal from this 2016 order and have been in prison since entry of the 2011 Contempt Order.
On appeal, de...
To continue reading
Request your trial