Brown v. Ellis
Citation | 696 S.E.2d 813 |
Decision Date | 03 August 2010 |
Docket Number | No. COA06-710-2.,COA06-710-2. |
Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Parties | William Lawson BROWN, III, Plaintiff,v.Mark P. ELLIS, Defendant. |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Upon remand from the Supreme Court of North Carolina for further review of an appeal by defendant from judgment entered on or about 2 February 2005 by Judge Melzer A. Morgan Jr. in Superior Court, Guilford County and order entered 13 December 2005 by Judge W. Douglas Albright in Superior Court, Guilford County.
Nix & Cecil, High Point, by Lee M. Cecil, for plaintiff-appellee.
Forman Rossabi Black, P.A., by T. Keith Black, and William F. Patterson, Jr., Greensboro, for defendant-appellant.
Plaintiff William Brown sued defendant Mark Ellis for alienation of affections and criminal conversation alleging that defendant, a California resident, had a romantic and sexual relationship with Mrs. Brown. After a trial at which defendant was neither present nor represented by counsel, judgment was entered against him for $ 600,000.00. When this case was first before us, we vacated the trial court's judgment, holding that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over defendant under N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1-75.4, the long-arm statute. Brown filed a petition for discretionary review, which the Supreme Court allowed. The Supreme Court reversed this Court's opinion, holding that North Carolina has jurisdiction over defendant pursuant to N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1-75.4, and remanded for our consideration of defendant's remaining issues. On remand, we reverse the trial court's order denying defendant's motion for new trial because defendant did not have adequate notice of trial.
The Supreme Court summarized the factual background of plaintiff's complaint and claims as follows:
Brown v. Ellis, 363 N.C. 360, 361-62, 678 S.E.2d 222, 222-23 (2009) (quotation marks and brackets omitted). The Supreme Court reviewed this Court's holding that the State of North Carolina did not have personal jurisdiction over defendant pursuant to N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1-75.4 Id., 363 N.C. 360, 678 S.E.2d 222. On 18 June 2009, the Supreme Court by a per curiam opinion reversed and remanded the Court of Appeals decision, holding that “[w]e conclude plaintiff's complaint alleges sufficient facts to authorize the exercise of personal jurisdiction over defendant pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 1-75.4(4)(a).” Id., 363 N.C. at 364, 678 S.E.2d at 224. Because we previously held that North Carolina did not have jurisdiction over defendant under N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1-75.4, we did not address defendant's constitutional arguments that North Carolina's exercise of jurisdiction over him violates his due process rights and that he did not have adequate notice of his trial. As instructed by the Supreme Court, we will now consider defendant's remaining arguments.
Defendant contends that “plaintiff [f]ailed to [s]how [s]ufficient [c]ontacts between [d]efendant and North Carolina to [s]atisfy the [d]ue [p]rocess [r]equirements for [e]xercise of [ i] n personam [j]urisdiction.” Our inquiry regarding personal jurisdiction requires consideration of two questions. Brown v. Meter, --- N.C.App. ----, ----, 681 S.E.2d 382, 387 (2009) disc. review denied and appeal dismissed, 364 N.C. 128, 695 S.E.2d 756 (2010). The first question is whether North Carolina has jurisdiction under N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1-75.4, the long-arm statute. Id. Our Supreme Court has answered that question in the affirmative. See Brown v. Ellis, 363 N.C. at 364, 678 S.E.2d at 224. We must now address the second part of the inquiry, which is whether defendant has “minimum contacts” with the State of North Carolina sufficient to satisfy the requirements of due process. “Due process requires that the defendant have minimum contacts with the state in order to satisfy traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Cooper v. Shealy, 140 N.C.App. 729, 734, 537 S.E.2d 854, 857 (2000) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
id., --- N.C.App. at ----, 681 S.E.2d at 388.
Although a determination of whether the required minimum contacts are present necessarily hinges upon the facts of each case, there are several factors a trial court typically evaluates in determining whether the required level of contacts exists: (1) quantity of the contacts between the defendant and the forum state, (2) quality and nature of the contacts, (3) the source and connection of the cause of action to the contacts, (4) the interest in the forum state, and (5) convenience of the parties.
Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted).
Our standard of review for this inquiry is de novo. Id., ---N.C.App. at ----, 681 S.E.2d at 387.
In examining the legal sufficiency of the trial court's order, our review on appeal focuses initially on whether the findings are supported by competent evidence in the record. If the findings of fact are supported by competent evidence, we conduct a de novo review of the trial court's conclusions of law and determine whether, given the facts found by the trial court, the exercise of personal jurisdiction would violate defendant's due process rights.
Id., --- N.C.App. at ----, 681 S.E.2d at 387 (citations, quotation marks, and brackets omitted).
Tompkins at 304, 390 S.E.2d at 769 (citation omitted).
It is undisputed that defendant has never visited North Carolina. However, the Supreme Court has held that defendant's telephone calls and email messages to plaintiff's wife in North Carolina were sufficient contacts to satisfy the long-arm statute, stating that:
[p]laintiff alleged that he resided in Guilford County with his wife and daughter and that defendant initiated frequent and inappropriate, and unnecessary telephone and e-mail conversations with plai...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ponder v. Been
...the cause of action to the contacts, (4) the interest in the forum state, and (5) convenience of the parties. Brown v. Ellis , 206 N.C. App. 93, 97, 696 S.E.2d 813, 817 (2010) (citations, quotation marks, and indentation omitted); see also id. at 98, 696 S.E.2d at 818 (holding because the "......
-
Southland Distribs. of N.C., LLC v. Hamilton
...J.M. Parker & Sons, Inc. v. William Barber, Inc., ––– N.C.App. ––––, ––––, 704 S.E.2d 64, 67 (2010). See also Brown v. Ellis, 206 N.C.App. 93, 108, 696 S.E.2d 813, 823 (2010) (finding motion for new trial should have been granted because the defendant “had no way of knowing and no reason to......
-
Miller v. Szilagyi
... ... Plaintiff argues that Brown v. Ellis, 363 N.C. 360, 678 S.E.2d 222 (2009), stands for the proposition that telephone calls and emails to North Carolina [are] sufficient for ... ...
-
Mucha v. Wagner
... ... Brown v. Ellis , 206 N.C. App. 93, 100, 696 S.E.2d 813, 819 (2010).We next examine the quality and nature of these calls. As noted above, the calls ... ...