Sanders v. Spaulding and Perkins, Ltd., 8610SC155
| Decision Date | 02 September 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 8610SC155,8610SC155 |
| Citation | 82 N.C.App. 680,347 S.E.2d 866 |
| Parties | Cleveland P. SANDERS and Angela Sanders v. SPAULDING AND PERKINS, LTD., a North Carolina Corporation; Spaulding and Perkins Realty Company, a North Carolina Partnership; George F. Spaulding and Grady Perkins, Individually. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Huggard & Hensley by John P. Huggard, Raleigh, for plaintiffs-appellees.
Thigpen, Blue, Stephens & Fellers by Carlton E. Fellers, Raleigh, for defendants-appellants.
The individual defendants are licensed real estate agents and at the times involved herein conducted their business through the corporate and partnership defendants. Plaintiffs sued defendants for fraud in two transactions in which they served as agents or brokers for plaintiffs; in one transaction a house that plaintiffs owned was sold and in the other plaintiffs bought a house that defendants found for them, which they later learned belonged to the defendants. At trial the jury found that a fiduciary relationship existed between plaintiffs and defendants, that defendants did not handle the two transactions in a fair, honest and open manner, and awarded plaintiffs $4,000 in compensatory damages and $1,000 in punitive damages. In appealing from the judgment entered on the verdict defendants bring forward four assignments of error; none has merit and we overrule them.
Two of defendants' assignments, the first and third, make the same contention--that no evidence of their alleged fraud was presented--and should have resulted in one question being stated and one argument being made, rather than two. In any event, apart from evidence presented to the same effect, defendants either admitted or stipulated that the two property sales occurred, that they were plaintiffs' agents in regard to them, and that a "relationship of trust and confidence" existed between them--which is clearly enough to make out a prima facie case of constructive fraud, since under our law when property is transferred between a fiduciary and his principal fraud is presumed. 2 Brandis N.C. Evidence Sec. 225 (1982). Thus, instead of plaintiffs being required to go further and present direct evidence of defendants' fraud, defendants had the burden of showing that they did not take advantage of plaintiffs and had handled the transactions in a fair, open and honest manner. McNeil v. McNeil, 223 N.C. 178, 25 S.E.2d 615 (1943); Smith v. Moore, 149 N.C. 185, 62 S.E. 892 (1908). But plaintiffs had more in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miltland Raleigh-Durham v. Myers
...and breached that duty by his non-disclosure of his 25% equity interest in the Durham Parcel. In Sanders v. Spaulding & Perkins, Ltd., 82 N.C.App. 680, 681, 347 S.E.2d 866, 867 (1986), a broker selling property to plaintiffs failed to disclose his ownership interest in the property. The Cou......
-
HAJMM Co. v. House of Raeford Farms, Inc.
...to plaintiff, which also amounted to evidence sufficient to prove constructive fraud, justified punitive damages. See Sanders, 82 N.C.App. at 681, 347 S.E.2d at 868 (1986). Defendants' assignment of error is Defendants have raised several other issues on appeal. We have carefully reviewed t......
-
Sara Lee Corp. v. Carter
...II When property is transferred between a fiduciary and his principal, fraud is presumed. See, e.g., Sanders v. Spaulding and Perkins, Ltd., 82 N.C.App. 680, 681, 347 S.E.2d 866, 867 (1986); Spence, 82 N.C.App. at 667, 347 S.E.2d at 866; Stone v. McClam, 42 N.C.App. 393, 400, 257 S.E.2d 78,......
-
Seafare Corp. v. Trenor Corp.
...the property, fraud was presumed and plaintiff was not required to present direct evidence of fraud. Sanders v. Spaulding and Perkins, Ltd., 82 N.C.App. 680, 681, 347 S.E.2d 866, 867 (1986). Defendants' next two assignments of error are that the trial court erred in failing to set aside the......