Adams v. State
| Decision Date | 02 August 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. COA15–1275.,COA15–1275. |
| Citation | 248 N.C.App. 463,790 S.E.2d 339 |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Rodney K. ADAMS, Elizabeth I. Allen, Joseph J. Bateman, William Paul Bateman, Gilbert A. Breedlove, Debra D. Carswell, Jason Gray Cheek, Christopher E. Duckworth, Bryan G. Farley, Melissa Ferrel, James Robert Freeman, Joshua Phillip Grant, Wanda M. Hammock, Marlene Hammond, Thomas Murphy Harris, Ronald E. Hodges, Thomas W. Holland, Gary H. Littleton, Linda B. Long, Pansy K. Martin, Sharon S. Mclaurin, Bruce A. Mcpherson, Thomas G. Miller, Jeffrey Mitchell, Donald D. Paschall, Sr., Robert Warren Pearce, Connie C. Peele, Julian R. Poteat, Margaret L. Rathbone, Ronald Raymond Roberts, Jr., Rae Renee Rothrock, Suzanne Sheehan, Susan B. Smevog, Kenneth Spears, Steven R. Storch, Cecil Lynn Webb, Emily Alicia Westover, William Eric Whitten, And William T. Winslow, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. The STATE of North Carolina, Patrick L. McCrory, Governor of the State of North Carolina, in his official capacity, Lee Harris Roberts, State Budget Director, in his official capacity, and Dr. Linda Morrison Combs, State Controller, in her official capacity, Defendants. |
248 N.C.App. 463
790 S.E.2d 339
Rodney K. ADAMS, Elizabeth I. Allen, Joseph J. Bateman, William Paul Bateman, Gilbert A. Breedlove, Debra D. Carswell, Jason Gray Cheek, Christopher E. Duckworth, Bryan G. Farley, Melissa Ferrel, James Robert Freeman, Joshua Phillip Grant, Wanda M. Hammock, Marlene Hammond, Thomas Murphy Harris, Ronald E. Hodges, Thomas W. Holland, Gary H. Littleton, Linda B. Long, Pansy K. Martin, Sharon S. Mclaurin, Bruce A. Mcpherson, Thomas G. Miller, Jeffrey Mitchell, Donald D. Paschall, Sr., Robert Warren Pearce, Connie C. Peele, Julian R. Poteat, Margaret L. Rathbone, Ronald Raymond Roberts, Jr., Rae Renee Rothrock, Suzanne Sheehan, Susan B. Smevog, Kenneth Spears, Steven R. Storch, Cecil Lynn Webb, Emily Alicia Westover, William Eric Whitten, And William T. Winslow, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs,
v.
The STATE of North Carolina, Patrick L. McCrory, Governor of the State of North Carolina, in his official capacity, Lee Harris Roberts, State Budget Director, in his official capacity, and Dr. Linda Morrison Combs, State Controller, in her official capacity, Defendants.
No. COA15–1275.
Court of Appeals of North Carolina.
Aug. 2, 2016.
Cloninger, Barbour, Searson, & Jones, PLLC, by Frederick S. Barbour and W. Scott Jones, and the Law Office of David A. Wijewickrama, by David A. Wijewickrama, for the Plaintiffs–Appellants.
Attorney General, Roy A. Cooper, III, by Special Deputy Attorney General, Marc Bernstein, for the Defendants–Appellees.
DILLON, Judge.
Plaintiffs appeal from the trial court's order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss and entering final judgment dismissing Plaintiffs' claims for (1) breach of contract, (2) impairment of contract under Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution, (3) violations of Article I, Sections 18 and 19 of the North Carolina Constitution, and (4) specific performance.
I. Background
Plaintiffs are all employed by the State of North Carolina as magistrates.1 The office of magistrate was created by constitutional amendment in 1962 as part of a comprehensive revision of the North Carolina court system spearheaded by Governor Luther H. Hodges and leaders of the North Carolina Bar Association.2 The North Carolina Constitution
provides that "[t]he General Assembly shall prescribe and regulate the ... salaries ... of all officers provided for in [ ] Article [IV]," N.C. Const. art. IV, § 21, which includes the salaries of magistrates. See N.C. Const. art. IV, § 10.
The General Assembly enacted a salary schedule for magistrates in 1977. Since 1977, this salary schedule has been amended numerous times. The current version is codified in N.C. Gen.Stat. § 7A–171.1 (the "Salary Statute") and provides for the salaries of magistrates as follows:
(1) A full-time magistrate shall be paid the annual salary indicated in the table set out in this subdivision.... Initial appointment shall be at the entry rate. A magistrate's salary shall increase to the next step every two years on
the anniversary of the date the magistrate was originally appointed for increases to Steps 1 through 3, and every four years on the anniversary of the date the magistrate was originally appointed for increases to Steps 4 through 6.
| Table of Salaries of Full–Time Magistrates |
|---|
| Step Level | Annual Salary | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Entry Rate | $35,275 | ||
| Step 1 | 37,950 | ||
| Step 2 | 40,835 | ||
| Step 3 | 43,890 | ||
| Step 4 | 47,550 | ||
| Step 5 | 51,960 | ||
| Step 6 | 56,900. |
N.C. Gen.Stat. § 7A–171.1(a)(1) (2015).
On 1 July 2009, the General Assembly enacted legislation suspending the step increases under the Salary Statute for fiscal years 2009–2010 and 2010–2011, such that no magistrate could ascend to a higher step of the pay schedule during those years. The step increases were again suspended by the General Assembly in 2011 for the 2011–2013 fiscal biennium3 and in 2013 for the 2013–2015 fiscal biennium. On 1 July 2014, however, the General Assembly fully reinstated the pay schedule and step increases.
Plaintiffs filed suit against the State of North Carolina in May 2014, alleging that when they accepted employment as magistrates, the pay schedule set forth in the Salary Statute became a vested contractual right and that the State committed a breach of contract by suspending the step increases. Plaintiffs also asserted related constitutional claims, as well as claims for specific performance and declaratory judgment.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1A–1, Rules 12(b)(1), (2), and (6). The trial court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss, specifically concluding that Plaintiffs' complaint "failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted[.]" See
N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1A–1, Rule 12(b)(6) (2015). In its order, the trial court specifically concluded that N.C. Gen.Stat. § 7A–171.1 did not create any contractual right for the Plaintiffs to receive step increases, and therefore Plaintiffs' claims were barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. We agree, and therefore affirm the trial court's order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss.
II. Analysis
On appeal from a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court conducts a de novo review of "whether the allegations of the complaint, if treated as true, are sufficient to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under some legal theory."4 Bridges v. Parrish, 366 N.C. 539, 541, 742 S.E.2d 794, 796 (2013). Plaintiffs argue that their complaint did, in fact, state a claim for breach of contract entitling them to relief. Plaintiffs also contend that they are entitled to relief under the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution and the Law of the Land Clause of the North Carolina Constitution. 5
] We address each of these arguments in turn.
A. Principles...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lake v. State Health Plan for Teachers
...just compensation.... Without a valid contract, Plaintiffs’ state constitutional claims also fail." Id. (citing Adams v. State , 248 N.C. App. 463, 469–70, 790 S.E.2d 339 (2016), disc. rev. denied , 370 N.C. 80, 803 S.E.2d 386 (2017) ). Accordingly, the court "reverse[d] the grant of partia......
-
Lannan v. Bd. of Governors of the Univ. of N.C.
...Clause because that provides the vested property right the State cannot take without just compensation. See Adams v. State , 248 N.C. App. 463, 470, 790 S.E.2d 339, 344 (2016) (although recognizing "vested contractual rights are property and are protected by the Law of the Land Clause of ou......
-
Terry v. State
...challenged legislative enactments. A virtually identical issue was addressed by this Court several months ago in Adams v. State , ––– N.C. App. ––––, 790 S.E.2d 339 (2016). Therefore, it is necessary to closely examine our decision in Adams .A. Adams v. StateIn Adams , the plaintiffs were a......
-
Lake v. State Health Plan for Teachers
...unconstitutional taking to occur, Plaintiffs must have a recognized property interest for the State to take." Adams v. State , ––– N.C. App. ––––, ––––, 790 S.E.2d 339, 344 (2016). Without a valid contract, Plaintiffs’ state constitutional claims also fail. Id. The trial court erred in gran......