Parker v. Pfeffer
Decision Date | 20 October 2020 |
Docket Number | No. COA19-1151,COA19-1151 |
Parties | Bradley E. PARKER, Plaintiff, v. Emma Grace PFEFFER, Defendant. |
Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Williams Mullen, Raleigh, by Michael C. Lord, for plaintiff-appellant.
Teague Rotenstreich Stanaland Fox & Holt PLLC, by Camilla F. DeBoard, Greensboro, and Kara V. Bordman, for defendant-appellee.
On August 7, 2019, the trial court granted Emma Grace Pfeffer's ("Defendant") motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Bradley E. Parker ("Plaintiff") appeals, arguing the trial court erred when it (1) failed to address Defendant's Rule 12(b)(4) and 12(b)(5) motions before issuing its order on Defendant's Rule 12(b)(2) motion; (2) determined that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Defendant; and (3) concluded that it did not maintain personal jurisdiction over Defendant when Defendant's contacts with North Carolina were continuous and systematic. We disagree.
On April 19, 2018, Plaintiff and Defendant were in a two-car accident in Austin, Texas. In September 2018, Plaintiff filed an action for negligence in Wake County District Court, and Defendant filed a motion in lieu of answer seeking dismissal under North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), (4), (5), and (6). On October 31, 2018, Defendant filed an amended motion in lieu of answer and an affidavit executed by Defendant. The affidavit asserted that Defendant is a citizen of the State of Texas, and did not operate a business, possess property, maintain financial accounts, or regularly visit North Carolina.
On January 8, 2019, the trial court denied Defendant's motion in lieu of answer "because, absent any service of process, the [trial court did] not have subject matter jurisdiction[,]" but "[o]nce the Complaint is served, Defendant [was] not barred from asserting any Rule 12 defense she may have." On February 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed an unverified amended complaint accompanied by a certificate and affidavit of service. Defendant responded with a second motion in lieu of answer and an appended affidavit contesting personal jurisdiction.
On July 18, 2019, this matter came on for hearing. In granting Defendant's 12(b)(2) motion, the trial court made the following undisputed findings of fact:
Based upon these findings of fact, the trial court concluded:
The trial court denied Defendant's Rule 12(b)(4) and 12(b)(5) motions to dismiss and granted Defendant's Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. On September 3, 2019, Plaintiff entered written notice of appeal. While this appeal was pending, Plaintiff filed a complaint in Travis County (Texas) District Court.
"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 America Securities LLC v. Evergreen Intern. Aviation, Inc. , 169 N.C. App. 690, 694, 611 S.E.2d 179, 183 (2005) (citation and quotation marks omitted). "Competent evidence is evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support the finding." City of Asheville v. Aly , 233 N.C. App. 620, 625, 757 S.E.2d 494, 499 (2014) (citation omitted).
The trial court's order dismissing this action is a final judgment, and appeal therefore lies to this Court pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27(b).
Plaintiff first argues that the trial court erred by failing to address Defendant's Rule 12(b)(4) and 12(b)(5) motions before issuing its order on Defendant's Rule 12(b)(2) motion. Because of personal jurisdiction's fundamental nature, our courts are not prohibited from reviewing a Rule 12(b)(2) motion prior to review of a Rule 12(b)(4) or 12(b)(5) motion, and Plaintiff's argument is without merit. See Love v. Moore , 305 N.C. 575, 579-80, 291 S.E.2d 141, 145 (1982) ( ); see also Prof'l Vending Servs., Inc. v. Michael D. Sifen, Inc. , No. COA08-1383, 2009 WL 2370683, at *5 (N.C. Ct. App. Aug. 4, 2009) (unpublished) ().
Regardless, conclusions of law 7 and 8 contain mixed findings of fact and conclusions of law. "The labels ‘findings of fact’ and ‘conclusions of law’ employed by the trial court in a written order do not determine the nature of our review." Westmoreland v. High Point Healthcare Inc. , 218 N.C. App. 76, 79, 721 S.E.2d 712, 716 (2012) (citation omitted). Specifically, "[w]hen this Court determines that findings of fact and conclusions of law have been mislabeled by the trial court, we may reclassify them, where necessary, before applying our standard of review." Cox v. Cox , 238 N.C. App. 22, 31, 768 S.E.2d 308, 314 (2014). "Where no exception is taken to a finding of fact by the trial court, the finding is presumed to be supported by competent evidence and is binding on appeal." Johnson v. Johnson , 259 N.C. App. 823, 831, 817 S.E.2d 466, 473 (2018) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Because Plaintiff does not specifically challenge conclusion of law 7 – "the affidavit of service appears to have [been] properly served by Federal Express the Complaint" and conclusion of law 8 – "the motion to dismiss for personal jurisdiction is ripe and ready for determination by the Court[,]" these mislabeled findings are binding on our Court. See id. at 831, 817 S.E.2d at 473 ( ). Therefore, Plaintiff sufficiently served Defendant to effectuate review of personal jurisdiction under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-75.4(1).
Bruggeman v. Meditrust Acquisition Co. , 138 N.C. App. 612, 615, 532 S.E.2d 215, 217 (2000) (citation omitted). When "the trial court chooses to decide the motion based on affidavits, the trial judge must determine the weight and...
To continue reading
Request your trial