Edwards v. West

• Decision Date: 17 February 1998
• Docket Number: No. COA96-261,COA96-261
• Citation: 128 N.C.App. 570,495 S.E.2d 920
• Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
• Parties: Mitchell EDWARDS and wife, Daphne Edwards, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Joseph Robert WEST d/b/a Century 21 West & Company, and Bob West, Inc., Defendants-Appellants.

Page 920

495 S.E.2d 920

128 N.C.App. 570

Mitchell EDWARDS and wife, Daphne Edwards, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Joseph Robert WEST d/b/a Century 21 West & Company, and Bob

West, Inc., Defendants-Appellants.

No. COA96-261.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Feb. 17, 1998.

Garris Neil Yarborough, Fayetteville, for plaintiff-appellees.

McCoy, Weaver, Wiggins, Cleveland & Raper, by Richard M. Wiggins, Fayetteville, for defendant-appellants.

SMITH, Judge.

This case arises from an October 1993 incident, when defendant Century 21 West & Company ("Century 21 West") contracted to sell plaintiffs Mitchell and Daphne Edwards' Lot 4 in the "Starwood at Overhill" subdivision for $105,000.00. Plaintiffs, first-time home buyers, retained defendant real estate agency Century 21 West for their professional assistance in purchasing a home. Defendant Joseph Robert West controlled both Century 21 West and another business known as Bob West, Incorporated ("Bob West, Inc.").

Once plaintiffs retained the services of Century 21 West, sales agent Ann Shrump ("Shrump") directed plaintiffs to Lot 4 on which Bob West, Inc., had exercised its option to purchase. During the negotiations for the purchase price, plaintiffs were given a plat by Shrump outlining the boundaries of the lot. The plat indicated the acreage of the lot to be 1.88 acres, making it the largest lot in the subdivision. In August 1993, the plat filed with Harnett County Registry showed the acreage of Lot 4 as 1.88 acres. Based on this information, plaintiffs executed an offer to purchase and contract on 11 October 1993.

However, plaintiffs later discovered the actual acreage of Lot 4 was reduced to 1.41 acres. A new plat was recorded at the Harnett County Registry on 19 January 1994, without plaintiffs' knowledge. As a result of this discovery, the parties attempted to renegotiate the contract so plaintiffs would still purchase the lot. The negotiations were unsuccessful. On 23 August 1994, plaintiffs filed a complaint against defendant Joseph Robert West, doing business as Century 21 West, and Bob West, Inc., alleging breach of contract, negligence, fraud, and unfair and deceptive trade practice claims.

Following trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiffs. Thereafter, the trial court trebled the damages and awarded attorneys fees to plaintiffs. Defendants appeal.

Before we address the merits of this case, we note that appellants have failed to comply with N.C.R.App. P. 9(a)(1)(I) and 26(a) and (d). There is no certification in the record signifying when or if a proposed record on appeal was ever served on plaintiffs by defendant appellants. Defendant appellants have the burden of ensuring "that all necessary papers are before the appellate court." Crowell Constructors, Inc. v. State ex rel. Cobey, 328 N.C. 563, 563, 402 S.E.2d 407, 408 (1991). Notwithstanding this omission, pursuant to the mandate of our Supreme Court and the authority of Hale v. Afro-American Arts International, Inc., 335 N.C. 231, 436 S.E.2d 588 (1993), we address defendants' appeal.

Appellate review is limited to those exceptions which pertain to the argument presented. Crockett v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assoc. of Charlotte, 289 N.C. 620, 632, 224 S.E.2d 580, 588 (1976). To obtain appellate review, a question raised by an assignment of error must be presented and argued in the brief. In re Appeal from Environmental Management Comm., 80 N.C.App. 1, 18, 341 S.E.2d 588, 598, disc. review denied, 317 N.C. 334, 346 S.E.2d 139 (1986). Questions raised by assignments of error which are not presented in a party's brief are deemed abandoned. State v. Wilson, 289 N.C. 531, 535, 223 S.E.2d 311, 313 (1976). Defendants' brief failed to address assignment of error number 4. Therefore, this assignment of error is deemed abandoned.

We also note that defendants' assignments of error regarding the breach of contract and unfair and deceptive trade practice claims both allege the trial court erred in denying defendants' motion for directed verdict at the close of plaintiffs' evidence. It is unnecessary to undertake a determination of whether plaintiffs' evidence, standing alone, was sufficient to withstand a motion for directed verdict. By offering evidence, defendants waived their motion for a directed verdict made at the close of plaintiffs' evidence. Bumgarner v. Tomblin, 92 N.C.App. 571, 574, 375 S.E.2d 520, 522, disc. review denied, 324 N.C. 333, 378 S.E.2d 789 (1989). Therefore, we address these assignments of error only as they relate to the motion for directed verdict made at the close of all evidence.

The standard of review for a directed verdict at the close of all evidence is that "the trial court must determine whether the evidence, when considered in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, is sufficient to take the case to the jury." Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. West, 100 N.C.App. 668, 670, 397 S.E.2d 765, 766 (1990), aff'd, 328 N.C. 566, 402 S.E.2d 409 (1991). The party moving for a directed verdict bears a heavy burden in North Carolina. Taylor v. Walker, 320 N.C. 729, 733, 360 S.E.2d 796, 799 (1987). The court should deny a motion for directed verdict when there is more than a scintilla to support plaintiffs' prima facie case. Southern Ry. v. O'Boyle Tank Lines Inc., 70 N.C.App. 1, 4, 318 S.E.2d 872, 875 (1984). Where the question of granting a directed verdict is a close one, the better practice is for the trial judge to reserve his decision on the motion and submit the case to the jury. Tice v. Hall, 63 N.C.App. 27, 37, 303 S.E.2d 832, 838 (1983), aff'd, 310 N.C. 589, 313 S.E.2d 565 (1984).

The first issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying defendants' motion for directed verdict at the close of all evidence on the breach of contract claim. In the instant case, the evidence is sufficient to take the case to the jury on plaintiffs' cause of action for breach of contract. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, the evidence shows that plaintiffs, first-time home buyers, retained defendant Century 21 West to assist in purchasing a home. During the negotiations, Century 21 West sales agent Shrump gave plaintiffs a plat delineating the boundaries of the lot. Defendants represented that the 1.88-acre lot was the largest lot in the subdivision. Based on these representations, plaintiffs entered into a contract to purchase Lot 4 with a house built on it because all the lots had the same purchase price and Lot 4 would be the best bargain. Upon discovery that the lot was only 1.41 acres, plaintiffs thought they were not getting the good deal they bargained for with defendants. Negotiations between the parties to correct the mistake failed and plaintiffs never purchased the lot. This evidence provides more than a scintilla of evidence that a breach of contract occurred. Thus, this issue was properly submitted to the jury and this assignment of error is overruled.

The second issue is whether the trial court erred in denying defendants' motion for directed verdict at the close of all evidence on the fraud claim pursuant to N.C. Gen.Stat. §§ 75-1.1 and 75-16 (1994). A claim pursuant to these statutes is typically known as an unfair and deceptive trade practice claim. An unfair and deceptive trade practice claim requires plaintiffs to show: (1) that defendants committed an unfair or deceptive act or practice; (2) in or affecting commerce; and (3) plaintiffs were injured thereby. Canady v. Mann, 107 N.C.App. 252, 260, 419 S.E.2d 597, 602 (1992), disc. review improvidently allowed, 333 N.C. 569, 429 S.E.2d 348 (1993). Plaintiffs must also establish they "suffered actual injury as a proximate result of defendants' misrepresentations." Ellis v. Smith-Broadhurst, Inc., 48 N.C.App. 180, 184, 268 S.E.2d 271, 273-74 (1980).

N.C.Gen.Stat. § 75-1.1. states that a trade practice is unfair if it "is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers." Johnson v. Phoenix Mut. Life Ins. Co., 300 N.C. 247, 263, 266 S.E.2d 610, 621 (1980), overruled on other grounds, Myers & Chapman, Inc. v. Thomas G. Evans, Inc., 323 N.C. 559, 374 S.E.2d 385 (1988). Furthermore, a trade practice is deceptive if it "has the capacity or tendency to deceive." Id. at 265, 266 S.E.2d at 622. "[I]t is a question of law for the court as to whether these proven facts constitute an unfair or deceptive trade practice." United Laboratories, Inc. v. Kuykendall, 322 N.C. 643, 664, 370 S.E.2d 375, 389 (1988), aff'd, 335 N.C. 183, 437 S.E.2d 374 (1993).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, the evidence in the instant case is sufficient to support an unfair and deceptive trade practice claim. Defendants concede the events giving rise to the lawsuit were acts affecting commerce. However, defendants argue plaintiffs did not show defendants' acts had the capacity to mislead or deceive and, further, that plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence of causation regarding damages in order for the court to present the issue to the jury.

To prevail on an unfair and deceptive trade practice claim, deliberate acts of deceit or bad faith do not have to be shown. Forsyth Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Contreras, 107 N.C.App. 611, 614, 421 S.E.2d 167, 169-70 (1992), disc. review denied, 333 N.C. 344, 426 S.E.2d 705 (1993). Instead, plaintiffs must demonstrate the act " 'possessed the tendency or capacity to mislead, or created the likelihood of deception.' " Id. (quoting Overstreet v. Brookland, Inc., 52 N.C.App. 444, 453, 279 S.E.2d 1, 7 (1981)). In addition, " '[a] party is guilty of an unfair act or practice when it engages in conduct; which amounts to an inequitable assertion of its power or position.' " Bolton Corp. v. T.A. Loving Co., 94 N.C.App. 392, 411-12, 380 S.E.2d 796, 808 (1989) (quoting Johnson v. Phoenix Mut. Life Insurance Co., 300 N.C. at 264, 266 S.E.2d at 622), disc. review denied, 325 N.C. 545, 385 S.E.2d...