Winkler v. N.C. State Bd. of Plumbing

• Decision Date: 05 June 2020
• Docket Number: No. 319PA18,319PA18
• Citation: 374 N.C. 726,843 S.E.2d 207
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: Dale Thomas WINKLER, and DJ's Heating Service v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF PLUMBING, Heating & Fire Sprinkler Contractors

374 N.C. 726

843 S.E.2d 207

Dale Thomas WINKLER, and DJ's Heating Service

v.NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF PLUMBING, Heating & Fire Sprinkler Contractors

No. 319PA18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Filed June 5, 2020

Bailey & Dixon, LLP, by Jeffrey P. Gray, Raleigh, for petitioner-appellants.

Young Moore and Henderson P.A., Raleigh, by Angela Farag Craddock, John N. Fountain, and Reed N. Fountain, for respondent-appellee.

Nichols, Choi & Lee, PLLC, by M. Jackson Nichols, Anna Baird Choi, Raleigh, and Christina D. Cress ; and North Carolina Real Estate Commission, by Janet B. Thoren, for the North Carolina Board of Architecture, North Carolina Board of Barber Examiners, North Carolina Real Estate Commission, North Carolina State Board of Chiropractic Examiners, and State Licensing Board for General Contractors, amici curiae.

BEASLEY, Chief Justice.

In this case, the Court is asked to consider whether a trial court may award attorney's fees to a prevailing party in a disciplinary action by a licensing board. Because we conclude that N.C.G.S. § 6-19.1 does not preclude a trial court from awarding attorney's fees in disciplinary actions by a licensing board, we modify and affirm the holding below.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

In April 2013, maintenance staff from the Best Western Hotel in Boone, North Carolina, contacted Dale Thomas Winkler f/k/a DJ's Heating Service (Winkler) to examine the hotel's pool heater. Winkler held a Heating Group 3 Class II (H-3-II) residential license that qualified him to work on detached residential HVAC units and, as such, he was not licensed to perform the work requested. Upon examining the heater, despite the fact that he was not equipped with the appropriate licensure, Winkler determined that the gas supply had been turned off. He located the fuel supply in the pool equipment room and turned on the gas.

On 16 April 2013, several days after Winkler examined the pool heater, two guests died in Room 225 of the hotel, located above the pool equipment room. The hotel closed the room until it could be checked for gas leaks. At the time, the cause of death for both guests was undetermined.

The hotel contacted Winkler, asking him to examine the ventilation system for the pool heater and the fireplace in Room 225. During his visit, Winkler performed a soap test to check for gas leaks and determined there were no leaks. Without checking for carbon monoxide, Winkler informed the hotel that the ventilation system appeared to be working.

Following Winkler's inspection, the hotel reopened Room 225 in late May 2013. On 8 June 2013, one guest died and another guest was injured while staying in Room 225. Shortly after the third death, toxicology reports from the first two guests were performed and indicated that both individuals had a lethal concentration of carbon monoxide in their blood. Toxicology reports later performed on the third and fourth guests also indicated excessive levels of carbon monoxide in their blood.

Following the issuance of the toxicology reports, the North Carolina State Board of Plumbing, Heating, & Fire Sprinkler Contractors (the Board) performed its own investigation and determined that carbon monoxide from the ventilation system for the pool heater had entered Room 225 through openings near the room's fireplace and HVAC unit. After he admitted to the Board that he had performed work beyond his license qualification, the Board suspended Winkler's license for one year and ordered him to complete multiple courses.

Winkler appealed the Board's decision to the Superior Court, Watauga County. The trial court entered an order on 22 June 2015 affirming the Board's decision. On appeal to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, Winkler challenged the Board's jurisdiction to discipline him for working on the pool heater without proper licensure. On 20 September 2016, the Court of Appeals held that N.C.G.S. § 87-21 did not grant the Board jurisdiction to discipline Winkler for conducting the pool heater inspection. Winkler v. State Bd. of Exam'rs of Plumbing, Heating & Fire Sprinklers Contractors (Winkler I ), 249 N.C. App. 578, 599, 790 S.E.2d 727, 739 (2016). The Court of Appeals vacated the portion of the Board's order relating to Winkler's inspection of the pool heater and remanded the case to the Board for entry of a new order based on other misconduct.

On 24 October 2016, Winkler filed a motion for attorney's fees and costs in Superior Court, Watauga County, pursuant to N.C.G.S. §§ 6-19.1 and 6-20, arguing that the Board knew or should have known that it lacked authority to discipline him for the pool heater inspection. The trial court entered an order awarding Winkler $29,347.47 in attorney's fees and costs. The Board appealed the order and moved to stay the order awarding attorney's fees and costs pending appeal.

The Court of Appeals ultimately held that the trial court erred in awarding Winkler attorney's fees pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 6-19.1 because, when read as a whole, the statute excludes cases arising out of the defense of a disciplinary action by a licensing board. Winkler v. N.C. State Bd. of Plumbing, Heating & Fire Sprinkler Contractors (Winkler II ), 261 N.C. App. 106, 114, 819 S.E.2d 105, 110–11 (2018). We disagree.

II. Discussion

In North Carolina, a trial court may award attorney's fees only as authorized by statute. City of Charlotte v. McNeely , 281 N.C. 684, 691, 190 S.E.2d 179, 185 (1972). Section 6-19.1 of the North Carolina General Statutes governs a trial court's ability to award attorney's fees. The relevant portion of the statute provides the following:

In any civil action, other than an adjudication for the purpose of establishing or fixing a rate, or a disciplinary action by a licensing board, brought by the State or brought by a party who is contesting State action pursuant to G.S. 150B-43 or any other appropriate provisions of law, unless the prevailing party is the State, the court may, in its discretion, allow the prevailing party to recover reasonable attorney's fees, including attorney's fees applicable to the administrative review portion of the case, in contested cases arising under Article 3 of Chapter 150B, to be taxed as court costs against the appropriate agency if:

(1) The court finds that the agency acted without substantial justification in pressing its claim against the party; and

(2) The court finds that there are no special circumstances that would make the award of attorney's fees unjust.

N.C.G.S. § 6-19.1(a) (2019).

The Board contends that the phrase "or a disciplinary action by a licensing board" was intended to be an exclusion to the statute; Winkler, on the other hand, argues that rate-fixing cases are the only exclusion to the statute. Thus, this case presents an issue of statutory interpretation, which we review de novo. Applewood Props., LLC v. New S. Props., LLC , 366 N.C. 518, 522, 742 S.E.2d 776, 779 (2013).

1. Statutory Construction of N.C.G.S. § 6-19.1

This Court has long recognized that, "[w]hen the language of a statute is clear and without ambiguity, it is the duty of this Court to give effect to the plain meaning of the statute, and judicial construction of legislative intent is not required." N.C. Dep't of Corr. v. N.C. Med. Bd. , 363 N.C. 189, 201, 675 S.E.2d 641, 649 (2009) (quoting Diaz v. Div. of Soc. Servs. , 360 N.C. 384, 387, 628 S.E.2d 1, 3 (2006) ). When the statutory language is ambiguous, however, the Court will ascertain legislative intent. Id.

Furthermore, courts should construe the statute so that "none of its provisions shall be rendered useless or redundant." Porsh Builders, Inc. v. City of Winston-Salem , 302 N.C. 550, 556, 276 S.E.2d 443, 447 (1981). Based on the Court's review of the words and punctuation used in N.C.G.S. § 6-19.1, we conclude that the statute is ambiguous.

The disputed language of N.C.G.S. § 6-19.1 is contained in the first half of the statute which reads that "[i]n any civil action, other than an adjudication for the purpose of establishing or fixing a rate, or a disciplinary action by a licensing board, brought by the State or brought by a party who is contesting State action ...." Both parties argue that the grammatical structure of the statute supports only their own interpretation of the statute and precludes that of their opponent, and the Court of Appeals relied heavily on the placement of commas and indefinite articles for its interpretation.

Ordinarily, the placement and use of punctuation aids in the process of statutory interpretation. Stephens Co. v. Lisk , 240 N.C. 289, 293–94, 82 S.E.2d 99, 102 (1954) (citing State v. Bell , 184 N.C. 701, 115 S.E. 190 (1922) ). But while punctuation "is intended to and does assist in making clear and plain the meaning of all things else in the English language," this Court has also recognized that punctuation "is not an infallible standard of construction," Bell , 184 N.C. at 706, 115 S.E. at 192. The statute at issue here demonstrates the fallibility of reliance on grammatical structure alone. Here each of the proposed constructions is marred by a punctuation or usage error. Thus, while we typically discuss statutory ambiguity in terms of the provision being equally susceptible of multiple interpretations, we see the opposite problem here—from a grammatical perspective, the provision at issue is equally unsusceptible of each proposed interpretation.

It is undisputed that the introductory phrase of N.C.G.S. § 6-19.1(a) sets out a broad category of actions—"any civil action"—in which, upon proper findings, the trial court may award attorney's fees. Likewise, everyone agrees that the clause immediately following the introductory phrase, which is set off by a pair of commas, delineates a subcategory of civil actions that are excluded from the provision—"an adjudication for the purpose of establishing or fixing a rate." The dispute in the instant case arises over the function of the next clause, which is also set off by a pair of commas, and...