Hundley v. AutoMoney, Inc., COA21-305
| Docket Number | COA21-305 |
| Decision Date | 19 July 2022 |
| Citation | 284 N.C.App. 378,876 S.E.2d 765 |
| Parties | Joshua HUNDLEY, Plaintiff, v. AUTOMONEY, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Brown, Faucher, Peraldo & Benson, PLLC, Greensboro, by James R. Faucher and Jeffrey K. Peraldo, for plaintiff-appellee.
Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, by Michael Montecalvo and Scott D. Anderson, for defendant-appellant.
¶ 1 Defendant AutoMoney, Inc. appeals from an Order Denying Motions to Dismiss. We affirm.
¶ 2 Plaintiff Joshua Hundley is a citizen of Rockingham County, North Carolina. In 2017, Mr. Hundley received a car tile loan from AutoMoney. Mr. Hundley first learned about car title loans from a friend. Mr. Hundley specifically learned of AutoMoney's services through a subsequent internet search. AutoMoney is a car title loan provider based out of South Carolina. AutoMoney does not maintain any physical locations in North Carolina.
¶ 3 Following his initial internet search, Mr. Hundley called AutoMoney from North Carolina. During this telephone conversation, the AutoMoney employee asked Mr. Hundley is he was interested in obtaining a car title loan. The AutoMoney employee asked Mr. Hundley some additional questions to determine his eligibility for a car title loan and then informed him during the initial telephone conversation that AutoMoney could loan him at least $1,000.00. The AutoMoney employee then told Mr. Hundley to drive to South Carolina in order to obtain the car title loan.
¶ 4 On 2 September 2017, Mr. Hundley drove from Rockingham County, North Carolina to Indian Land, South Carolina, where an AutoMoney store is located. In the window of the Indian Land, South Carolina AutoMoney store, there is a sign which reads, "NC Titles Welcomed." While at the Indian Land, South Carolina store, AutoMoney issued Mr. Hundley a car title loan. The loan was in the amount of $1,220.00 at an annual interest rate of 158.000%. AutoMoney then put a lien on Mr. Hundley's vehicle through the North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles ("NCDMV").
¶ 5 Mr. Hundley made payments on the car title loan over the phone from North Carolina. On multiple occasions, AutoMoney called Mr. Hundley in North Carolina for collection purposes. Eventually, Mr. Hundley fell behind on making payments on the car title loan. AutoMoney then took possession of Mr. Hundley's car from his driveway in North Carolina.
¶ 6 On 20 May 2020, Mr. Hundley filed a Complaint in Rockingham County Superior Court alleging causes of action for violations of the North Carolina Consumer Finance Act, for unfair and deceptive trade practices, usury allegations, and seeking declaratory relief. In response, AutoMoney filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6) on 30 June 2020. Both parties submitted affidavits and evidence pertaining to the Motion to Dismiss. The matter came on for hearing on 25 January 2021. The trial court entered an Order Denying Motions to Dismiss on 29 January 2021. AutoMoney filed Notice of Appeal on 22 February 2021.
¶ 7 As a preliminary matter, multiple appellate motions have been filed. AutoMoney filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari on 24 June 2021 and Mr. Hundley filed a Motion to Dismiss Interlocutory Appeal on 23 September 2021. We discuss these appellate filings in turn.
¶ 8 Under N.C.R. App. P. 21(a)(1), "a writ of certiorari will only be issued upon a showing of appropriate circumstances in a civil case where [inter alia ] no right to appeal from an interlocutory order exists." Stetser v. TAP Pharm. Prods. Inc. , 165 N.C. App. 1, 12, 598 S.E.2d 570, 578-79 (2004). This Court has determined that it is appropriate to grant writ of certiorari in the interest of justice when the impact of the lawsuit is "significant," the issues involved are "important," and the case presents a need for the writ in the interest of the "efficient administration of justice," or the granting of the writ would "promote judicial economy." See Stetser , 165 N.C. App. at 12, 598 S.E.2d at 578-79 (); see also Hill v. StubHub, Inc. , 219 N.C. App. 227, 232, 727 S.E.2d 550, 554 (2012) (). Interlocutory review tends to serve judicial economy when an appeal presents pure questions of law, "not dependent on further factual development." Lamb v. Wedgewood S. Corp. , 308 N.C. 419, 425, 302 S.E.2d 868, 872 (1983).
¶ 9 AutoMoney's appeal from the trial court's denial of their Motion to Dismiss presents two issues for this Court to review: (1) whether the trial court erred by denying defendant's 12(b)(2) motion and determining that it has personal jurisdiction over AutoMoney and (2) whether the trial court erred by denying AutoMoney's 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss. A trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss based on personal jurisdiction implicates a substantial right and is immediately appealable, independent of a petition for writ of certiorari. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-277(b) (). AutoMoney asks this Court to exercise our discretion to review the denial of its 12(b)(6) motion, which otherwise would not be immediately appealable. AutoMoney's 12(b)(6) motion is based on the enforceability of a choice of law provision found in the loan agreement entered between AutoMoney and Mr. Hundley. This issue appears to be a pure question of law which does not require further development of the factual record. Thus, in the interest of judicial economy, we grant certiorari and elect to exercise our discretion to review the denial of AutoMoney's 12(b)(6) motion in the instant appeal.
¶ 10 Mr. Hundley filed a Motion to Dismiss Interlocutory Appeal that requests this Court to dismiss as interlocutory the portion of AutoMoney's appeal which relates to the 12(b)(6) motion. "Ordinarily, a trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure is an interlocutory order from which there is no [immediate] right of appeal." Grant v. Miller , 170 N.C. App. 184, 186, 611 S.E.2d 477, 478 (2005). However, as discussed above, it is in the interest of judicial economy for this issue to be decided as part of the present appeal. Thus, we deny Mr. Hundley's Motion to Dismiss the appeal.
¶ 11 We first review AutoMoney's argument that the trial court erred in denying its 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. AutoMoney asserts that minimum contacts to render personal jurisdiction constitutionally permissible do not exist. AutoMoney does not challenge the applicability of the long-arm statute, thus, the sole issue before this Court regarding personal jurisdiction is whether the trial court properly concluded that the exercise of jurisdiction over defendants did not violate due process.
¶ 12 "The standard of review to be applied by a trial court in deciding a motion under Rule 12(b)(2) depends upon the procedural context confronting the court." Parker v. Town of Erwin , 243 N.C. App. 84, 95, 776 S.E.2d 710, 720 (2015) (citations and quotations omitted). "If the parties submit dueling affidavits the court may hear the matter on affidavits presented by the respective parties, or the court may direct that the matter be heard wholly or partly on oral testimony or depositions." Id. at 97, 776 S.E.2d at 721 (cleaned up). "If the trial court chooses to decide the motion based on affidavits, the trial judge must determine the weight and sufficiency of the evidence presented in the affidavits much as a juror." Id. (cleaned up). "When this Court reviews a decision as to personal jurisdiction, it considers only whether the findings of fact by the trial court are supported by competent evidence in the record; if so, this Court must affirm the order of the trial court." Id. at 97-98, 776 S.E.2d at 722 (citation omitted).
¶ 13 "The determination of whether jurisdiction is statutorily and constitutionally permissible due to contact with the forum is a question of fact. " Cooper v. Shealy , 140 N.C. App. 729, 732, 537 S.E.2d 854, 856 (2000) (emphasis added) (citation and quotation marks omitted). "When this Court reviews a decision as to personal jurisdiction, it considers only whether the findings of fact by the trial court are supported by competent evidence in the record; if so, this Court must affirm the order of the trial court." Banc of Am. Sec. LLC v. Evergreen Int'l Aviation, Inc. , 169 N.C. App. 690, 694, 611 S.E.2d 179, 183 (2005) (cleaned up). If the trial court's findings of fact are supported by competent evidence in the record, then we must affirm the trial court's order, no matter how we might view the evidence. Ponder v. Been , 275 N.C. App. 626, 637, 853 S.E.2d 302, 309-10 (Stroud, J., dissenting), rev'd per curiam per dissent , 380 N.C. 570, 2022-NCSC-24, 869 S.E.2d 193. "Therefore, the question for the appellate court is whether, as a matter of law, the allegations of the complaint, treated as true, are sufficient to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under some legal theory, whether properly labeled or not." Replacements, Ltd. v. Midwesterling , 133 N.C. App. 139, 141, 515 S.E.2d 46, 48 (1999) (cleaned up) (citing Miller v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. , 112 N.C. App. 295, 300, 435 S.E.2d 537, 541 (1993), disc. rev. denied , 335 N.C. 770, 442 S.E.2d 519 (1994) ).
¶ 14 Personal jurisdiction analysis involves two steps. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial