Bradley Woodcraft, Inc. v. Bodden

• Decision Date: 20 December 2016
• Docket Number: No. COA16-692,COA16-692
• Citation: 251 N.C.App. 27,795 S.E.2d 253
• Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
• Parties: BRADLEY WOODCRAFT, INC., Plaintiff, v. Christine BODDEN a/k/a Christine Dryfus, Defendant.

251 N.C.App. 27

795 S.E.2d 253

BRADLEY WOODCRAFT, INC., Plaintiff,

v.Christine BODDEN a/k/a Christine Dryfus, Defendant.

No. COA16-692

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 20, 2016

John M. Kirby, Raleigh, for defendant-appellant.

Morningstar Law Group, Raleigh, by Shannon R. Joseph, for plaintiff-appellee.

ENOCHS, Judge.

Christine Bodden a/k/a Christine Dryfus ("Defendant") appeals from the trial court's judgment against her, and the trial court's order awarding costs to Bradley Woodcraft, Inc. ("Plaintiff"). On appeal, she contends that the trial court erred in (1) entering a directed verdict against her as to her fraud claim; (2) entering a directed verdict against her as to her unfair and deceptive trade practices claim; (3) entering judgment where the verdicts were inconsistent; (4) admitting the testimony of a purported expert witness; (5) awarding costs to Plaintiff; and (6) denying her motion for costs. After careful review, we reverse the trial court's judgment and order and remand for a new trial on all issues.

Factual Background

In 2013, Defendant and her husband, Chris Dryfus ("Chris"), bought a house in Raleigh, North Carolina. The house was approximately 20 years old and Defendant and Chris decided to renovate certain parts of it.

Toward this end, in July 2013, Defendant contacted Plaintiff, a contracting company which is owned and operated by Joey Bradley ("Bradley"), and employed it to build custom archways and to do select trim work around the house. Bradley represented to Defendant that he was qualified to carry out these projects. Shortly after beginning his work at Defendant's and Chris’ home, Bradley submitted a proposal to Defendant for additional renovations in her kitchen that he claimed he could perform as well—including installing new cabinetry and an island cabinet. Defendant agreed to this proposal.

As work on the home renovations progressed, Defendant became dissatisfied with Plaintiff's work, believing that it did not conform to the specifications they had agreed to. As a result, Defendant communicated to Bradley on multiple occasions that the renovations were not being done correctly and were unacceptable. Specifically, Defendant informed Bradley, among other deficiencies in Plaintiff's work, that the island was not plumb, the ends of the cabinets were unfinished, the hutches for the archways were not flush with the wall, the quality of the cabinets was poor, the refrigerator was not plumb, and the dishwasher opening was too large.

In late June 2014, Defendant and Bradley met to discuss the progress of the various renovation projects. During this meeting, Defendant made the final two agreed to payments for Plaintiff's work with her American Express card in the amounts of $19,000.00 and $7,000.00 respectively. Defendant believed that at the time she made these payments it was understood that Plaintiff would complete its work on her home to the agreed upon specifications and correct any errors in the work that had already been done. Bradley, conversely, had a different recollection of this meeting believing that he and Defendant had resolved that all of the renovations were complete and satisfactory and that no further work was necessary.

Thereafter, Bradley did not perform any further work on Defendant's house and did not return her phone calls or respond to other attempts by her to contact him. Defendant, believing that Plaintiff had breached their agreement by failing to finish the agreed to renovation projects, contacted American Express and disputed the $26,000.00 in payments she had made to Plaintiff. American Express ultimately reversed the charges based upon Defendant's representations.

On 14 November 2014, Plaintiff filed a complaint in Wake County Superior Court alleging causes of action for breach of implied and express contract against Defendant seeking to recover the $26,000.00 amount that Defendant had American Express reverse, plus interest, as well as court costs. On 20 January 2015, Defendant filed an answer, motion to dismiss Plaintiff's breach of implied contract claim, and counterclaims for (1) breach of contract; (2) fraudulent misrepresentation; (3) negligent misrepresentation; (4) wrongful interference with contractual rights; (5) wrongful interference with prospective contract; and (6) unfair and deceptive trade practices.

On 13 August 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on all of Defendant's counterclaims except for her claim for breach of contract. A hearing on Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and Defendant's motion to dismiss was held on 7 December 2015 before the Honorable G. Bryan Collins, Jr. in Wake County Superior Court. That same day, Judge Collins entered an order denying Defendant's motion to dismiss.

On 11 December 2015, Judge Collins entered an order granting Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as to Defendant's wrongful interference with contract rights counterclaim and wrongful interference with prospective contract counterclaim. Judge Collins denied Plaintiff's motion, however, as to Defendant's fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and unfair and deceptive trade practices counterclaims.

A trial was subsequently held before Judge Collins in Wake County Superior Court from 4 January 2016 through 8 January 2016. At trial, Plaintiff moved for a directed verdict on Defendant's fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and unfair and deceptive trade practices claims on the theory that because a valid contract was in effect between the parties, the economic loss rule limited Defendant's possible remedies to those arising under the law of contract. After hearing the arguments of the parties, the trial court ultimately granted Plaintiff's motion and directed verdict in its favor on these claims.

Defendant presented evidence at trial tending to establish that Bradley fraudulently represented to her that he was a licensed general contractor when he was not in order to induce Defendant to hire him to perform the renovations to her home. She also stated that Bradley billed her for items which were never delivered and promised that he would complete the work when he had no intention of doing so.

At the conclusion of trial, the jury found Defendant had breached her contract with Plaintiff and determined that she was liable to Plaintiff for $26,000.00. The jury also found Plaintiff had breached the contract as well, however, and awarded Defendant $19,400.00.

On 19 January 2016, Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration and for a new trial pursuant to Rules 54(b), 59, and 60 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant additionally filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict pursuant to Rule 50. That same day, Plaintiff filed a motion for costs and attorneys’ fees. Defendant, in turn, filed her own motion for costs on 1 February 2016.

The trial court entered judgment on 4 February 2016 offsetting the two verdicts resulting in a net judgment against Defendant in the amount of $6,600.00. The trial court also entered an order on 22 February 2016 (1) granting Plaintiff's motion for costs and awarding costs to Plaintiff in the amount of $4,599.87; (2) denying Plaintiff's motion for attorneys’ fees; (3) denying Defendant's motion for reconsideration and for a new trial; (4) denying Defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict; and (5) denying Defendant's motion for costs. Defendant filed notice of appeal of the trial court's judgment and 22 February 2016 order on 7 March 2016. Plaintiff also filed notice of appeal of the trial court's judgment and 22 February 2016 order, but subsequently withdrew its appeal on 17 June 2016.

Analysis

I. Economic Loss Doctrine

Defendant first argues on appeal that the trial court erred in entering a directed verdict against her as to her claim for fraud. Specifically, she contends that the trial court incorrectly applied the economic loss doctrine in directing its verdict on this issue. We agree.

When considering a motion for a directed verdict, a trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, giving that party the benefit of every reasonable inference arising from the evidence. Any conflicts and inconsistencies in the evidence must be resolved in favor of the non-moving party. If there is more than a scintilla of evidence supporting each element of the non-moving party's claim, the motion for a directed verdict should be denied.

Maxwell v. Michael P. Doyle, Inc. , 164 N.C.App. 319, 322, 595 S.E.2d 759, 761 (2004) (internal citations omitted). "[T]his Court must determine whether plaintiff's evidence, when considered in the light most favorable to plaintiff, was legally sufficient to withstand defendants’ motion for a directed verdict as to plaintiff's claims. The motion for directed verdict should be denied if there is more than a scintilla of evidence supporting each element of plaintiff's claim." Merrick v. Peterson , 143 N.C.App. 656, 661, 548 S.E.2d 171, 175 (2001). Also, "[b]ecause the trial court's ruling on a motion for a directed verdict addressing the sufficiency of the evidence presents a question of law, it is reviewed de novo. " Maxwell , 164 N.C.App. at 323, 595 S.E.2d at 761.

Furthermore, it is well settled that "[r]eversal is warranted where a trial court acts under a misapprehension of the law. Our Supreme Court has held that ‘where it appears that the judge below has ruled upon [a] matter before him upon a misapprehension of the law, the cause will be remanded to the Superior Court for further hearing in the true legal light.’ " In re M.K. (I) , ––– N.C. App. ––––, ––––, 773 S.E.2d 535, 541 (2015) (quoting Capps v. Lynch , 253 N.C. 18, 22, 116 S.E.2d 137, 141 (1960) ); see also Free Spirit Aviation, Inc. v. Rutherford Airport Auth. , 206 N.C.App. 192, 204, 696 S.E.2d 559, 567 (2010) ("When the trial court exercises its discretion under a misapprehension of the law, it is appropriate to...