Maldjian v. Bloomquist
| Decision Date | 15 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. COA19-975,COA19-975 |
| Citation | 853 S.E.2d 753 |
| Parties | Joseph A. MALDJIAN and Mariana Maldjian, Plaintiffs, v. Charles R. BLOOMQUIST and Caroline Bloomquist, Defendants-Appellants/Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. Patti D. Dobbins, Kathy Smith, and Allen Tate Co., Inc., Third-Party Defendants. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Fitzgerald Litigation, by Andrew L. Fitzgerald, and The Bomar Law Firm, PLLC, by J. Chad Bomar, for plaintiffs-appellees.
Blanco Tackabery & Matamoros, P.A., by Peter J. Juran, Winston-Salem, and Chad A. Archer, Greensboro, and Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, Winston-Salem, by Stuart H. Russell and Lorin J. Lapidus, for defendants-appellants/third-party plaintiffs-appellants.
Poyner Spruill LLP, by John Michael (J.M.) Durnovich and Karen H. Chapman, Charlotte, for third-party defendants-appellees Kathy Smith and Allen Tate Co., Inc.
Cranfill Sumner & Hartzog LLP, Raleigh, by Richard T. Boyette, for third-party defendant-appellee Patti D. Dobbins.
On their third appeal to this Court, the parties continue their protracted litigation concerning, inter alia , reformation of a deed conveying over 62 acres of real property in Mocksville, North Carolina. The background and procedural facts of this case are provided, in part, in the parties’ two related appeals: Maldjian v. Bloomquist , 245 N.C. App. 222, 782 S.E.2d 80 (2016), and Maldjian v. Bloomquist , 245 N.C. App. 328, 782 S.E.2d 121, 2016 WL 409797 (2016) (unpublished).
On 19 March 2018, this matter came on for trial by jury in Davie County Superior Court. After an eight-day trial, the jury found that Plaintiffs Joseph A. Maldjian and Mariana Maldjian executed a deed for 62.816 acres, more or less, to Defendants Charles R. Bloomquist and Caroline Bloomquist under a mutual mistake of fact. In addition, the jury found against the Bloomquists on the counterclaims they lodged against the Maldjians, as well as the Bloomquists’ claims against third-party Defendants Patti D. Dobbins, Kathy Smith, and Allen Tate Co., Inc. ("Allen Tate Co."). The trial court drew the description for a deed of correction, conveying 22.015 acres, more or less, to the Bloomquists, and ordered the Bloomquists to execute the correction deed within 10 days of entry of judgment.
The Bloomquists contend on appeal that the trial court erred (1) by denying certain of the Bloomquists’ motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict; and (2) by excluding certain evidence following pretrial motions in limine. After careful review, we affirm.
The Maldjians owned 62.816 acres on Cana Road in Mocksville, North Carolina ("the Cana Road property"). They were contacted by the Bloomquists’ realtor, Kathy Smith of Allen Tate Co., regarding the sale of a portion of the Cana Road property. Because the Bloomquists lived in Pennsylvania, the Maldjians dealt primarily with Kathy Smith and the Bloomquists’ daughter and son-in-law, Kate and Sidney Hawes. Mrs. Maldjian testified that she met with the Haweses and discussed "different configurations" of the property for sale, shading various acreages on the Davie County Geographic Information System map. Kathy Smith and LeAnne Brugh, the Maldjians’ realtor, were also present. After negotiating a price and agreeing to have the 22 acres surveyed, the parties entered into a contract, which Smith prepared at the Bloomquists’ direction. The Maldjians hired a surveyor who prepared a survey of the 22 acres, which was shared with the Bloomquists and Smith, and recorded prior to closing. The Bloomquists retained Patti D. Dobbins to serve as the closing attorney and to prepare the deed. She later agreed to represent the Maldjians as well. On 20 May 2013, the Maldjians executed a deed, recorded at Deed Book 551, Page 69, Davie County Registry, conveying the entire Cana Road property to the Bloomquists. The Bloomquists then leased the Cana Road property to the Haweses.
Approximately ten months after the closing on the Cana Road property deal, the Maldjians filed suit against the Bloomquists and the Haweses, seeking, inter alia , reformation of the deed conveying all of the Cana Road property to the Bloomquists.
The Maldjians contended that the deed was incorrect, the result of mutual mistake and a draftsman's error, and did not correctly reflect the intention of the parties. According to the evidence propounded by the Maldjians at trial, the parties negotiated for the sale and purchase of 22 acres. In support of their contention, the Maldjians offered, among other evidence, the parties’ correspondence, the survey, and the testimony of various witnesses. Smith, the Bloomquists’ realtor, testified that the parties negotiated the sale of 22 acres to the Bloomquists. The closing attorney, Dobbins, testified that the Bloomquists agreed to purchase 22 acres, but that she inadvertently failed to draw a new description from the survey of the 22 acres, and instead inserted the description of the entire 62-acre tract into the deed, which the Maldjians signed and Dobbins recorded. Furthermore, the local Carolina Farm Credit agent testified that Dr. Bloomquist complained to him that he was overcharged on his property tax bill because it included 41 acres that he did not purchase—he only purchased 22 acres, and thus did not owe property taxes on the entire 62-acre tract. Dobbins, the closing attorney, also testified that she and Dr. Bloomquist had several conversations about the incorrect description in the deed, which she offered to correct at no charge. Mrs. Maldjian testified that she and her husband were not alerted to the problem with the deed until neighbors complained to them nine to ten months later that the Haweses were limiting their access to a portion of the property that the Maldjians did not think that they had sold. This report prompted the Maldjians to review the deed on the website for the Davie County Register of Deeds, at which time they discovered the error. The Maldjians maintained that they then attempted to work with the Bloomquists to resolve this error.
The Bloomquists maintained at trial that they intended to purchase the entire 62-acre Cana Road property from the Maldjians, and that they interpreted the contract's reference to a 22-acre survey to mean that the Maldjians would provide them with a survey of 22 acres for their future use. They did not think that it referred to the number of acres that they were purchasing. Dr. Bloomquist testified that the contract also stated "Lot/Unit 62," which the Bloomquists believed was the number of acres that they were purchasing. According to the Bloomquists, the parties had a meeting of the minds, and the deed conveying the entire Cana Road property to them accurately reflected the intention of the parties.
On 11 March 2014, the Maldjians filed a verified complaint against the Bloomquists and the Haweses in Davie County Superior Court, seeking, inter alia , reformation of the deed. On 1 May 2014, the Maldjians filed their amended verified complaint, and on 10 July 2014, the Maldjians filed their second amended verified complaint.
On 22 July 2014, the Bloomquists and the Haweses filed their answer generally denying the Maldjians’ claims, asserting various defenses, and moving to dismiss the complaint. The Bloomquists further asserted several counterclaims relating to the condition of the house against the Maldjians: (1) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (2) negligent misrepresentation; (3) fraud; (4) unfair and deceptive trade practices; and (5) breach of contract. On 21 August 2014, the Maldjians responded to the Bloomquists’ counterclaims, generally denying the Bloomquists’ allegations and asserting various defenses.
On 22 April 2016, the Bloomquists moved to add Dobbins, Smith, and Allen Tate Co. as third-party defendants. After the trial court granted the motion, the Bloomquists filed their third-party complaint, alleging (1) legal malpractice on the part of Dobbins, (2) negligence on the part of Smith and Allen Tate Co., and (3) breach of contract on the part of Smith and Allen Tate Co.
Dobbins filed an answer and crossclaim on 6 July 2016 against Smith and Allen Tate Co., seeking joint tortfeasor contribution if her alleged negligence was determined to be a proximate cause of any damages sustained by the Bloomquists. In response, Smith and Allen Tate Co. filed their answer and crossclaim, in which they moved to dismiss the third-party complaint, generally denied the allegations therein, and crossclaimed against Dobbins for indemnity.
On 17 March 2017, both the Bloomquists and the Haweses moved for summary judgment. On 3 April 2017, the trial court granted the Haweses’ motion for summary judgment as defendants, but denied the motion with regard to the Bloomquists.
On 19 March 2018, the case came on for jury trial in Davie County Superior Court, the Honorable Tanya T. Wallace presiding. The jury heard evidence on (1) the Maldjians’ claim for reformation of the deed; (2) the Maldjians’ claim for unjust enrichment; (3) the Bloomquists’ counterclaim for breach of contract, with regard to the condition of the house; (4) the Bloomquists’ third-party claim for legal malpractice against Dobbins; and (5) the Bloomquists’ third-party claims for negligence and breach of contract against Smith and Allen Tate Co.
The Bloomquists moved for directed verdict on the Maldjians’ claim for unjust enrichment, which the trial court granted. The trial court denied all other motions for directed verdict, including the Bloomquists’ motion for directed verdict on the Maldjians’ claim for reformation of the deed. At the close of all evidence, the Bloomquists again moved for directed verdict on the remaining claims, which the trial court denied.
After a short deliberation, the jury found, inter alia , that: (1) the Maldjians executed the deed under a mutual mistake of fact; (2) the Maldjians did not breach their contract with the Bloomquists; (3)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re J.D.O.
...of parental rights proceeding or in civil cases generally. She cites the Court of Appeals opinion in Maldjian v. Bloomquist , 275 N.C. App. 103, 853 S.E.2d 753 (2020), as "signal[ing] that review for cumulative error is appropriate in a civil context." The lower appellate court in Maldjian ......
- Umstead Coalition v. Raleigh-Durham Airport Auth.