Woodridge Homes Ltd. P'ship v. Gregory
| Decision Date | 20 July 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. COA09-1024.,COA09-1024. |
| Citation | 697 S.E.2d 370 |
| Parties | WOODRIDGE HOMES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Plaintiff,v.Hedy GREGORY, Defendant. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Appeal by plaintiff from judgment entered 16 April 2009 by Judge John K. Greenlee in Gaston County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 25 January 2010.
Manning, Fulton & Skinner, PA, Raleigh, by Mr. Michael S. Harrell, for plaintiff-appellant.
Legal Aid of North Carolina, Inc., by Missy Phelps, Gastonia, Theodore O. Fillette, III, and Linda S. Johnson, Charlotte, for defendant-appellee.
Plaintiff Woodridge Homes Limited Partnership appeals from a judgment entered by the trial court granting a motion for involuntary dismissal made by Defendant Hedy Gregory pursuant to N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 41. After careful consideration of the facts in light of the applicable law, we conclude that the trial court erred by failing to apply the correct legal standard in deciding the legal issues arising upon the present record, that the trial court's judgment should be reversed, and that this case should be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
In 1995, Plaintiff leased an apartment to Defendant at the Woodridge complex located in Mt. Holly, North Carolina. The initial lease period began on 16 January 1995, ran for one year, and was renewable for successive one-year terms “by written agreement signed by all parties....” Apartments in the Woodridge complex are subsidized by the Rural Development Service of the United States Department of Agriculture.1 Initially, Defendant was required to make a monthly tenant contribution of $60.00 per month and to pay her own electric, cable, and telephone bills. By the time that this action commenced, Defendant's monthly rental payment and utility bills were completely subsidized by the Department of Agriculture, so that Defendant was not making any monthly tenant contribution or utility bill payments.
The lease under which Defendant occupied her apartment included a section entitled “Rules and Regulations.” The specific regulations to which tenants were required to adhere provided, among other things, that:
4. Apartment garbage, rubbish, and other waste shall be removed in a clean and safe manner and all such matter shall be placed in receptacles provided.
....
7. TENANT is to conduct himself and require other persons in the apartment or on the premises, with his consent, to conduct themselves in such a manner that other TENANTS' peaceful and quiet enjoyment of the premises is not disturbed and to assure that actions are not offensive, noisy, dangerous or disruptive to the rights, privileges and welfare of other TENANTS and persons.
....
9. The sidewalks, entrances, porches, floors, and back yards shall be kept free from rubbish.
....
12. The TENANT shall remove any abandoned vehicle within 48 hours of notice to do the same. Failure to do so is a violation of the terms of this agreement and the LANDLORD reserves the right to terminate the TENANT'S Lease and have the abandoned vehicle towed at owner's expense. An abandoned vehicle is defined as one without current state registration, inspection sticker displayed or license plate, or a vehicle that is not covered by insurance mandated by state law, or a vehicle that is not operable....
....
18. All maintenance requests shall be given to the LANDLORD in writing with the exception of emergencies. The LANDLORD will provide a “TENANT MAINTENANCE REQUEST” form for reporting maintenance requests.
....
20. TENANT shall neither deliberately nor negligently destroy, deface, damage, impair or remove any part of the apartment or premises, or permit or to fail to prevent any person in the apartment or on the premises to do so (whether known or unknown TENANT). TENANT shall immediately notify the LANDLORD as to any damages which occur and shall reimburse the LANDLORD for damages within 30 days of receipt of written statement from LANDLORD.
According to Section Twelve of the lease, “[a]t the close of the current lease period and for good cause, either party may terminate this lease prior to expiration by giving the other written notice at least 30 days prior to move-out or date of termination.” (emphasis in the original). In addition, Section Twelve, Subsection 2 of the lease provides that “Landlord may terminate this lease agreement, with proper notice, for the following reasons:
TENANT's material noncompliance with the terms of the lease, such as, but not limited to; (a) nonpayment of rent past a 10-day grace period; (b) nonpayment of any other financial obligations beyond the required date of payment; (c) repeated late payment of rent or other financial obligations; (d) admission to, or conviction of, any drug violations as defined in Section 18; (e) permitting unauthorized persons to live in the unit; (f) repeated minor violations of the lease; (g) one or more major violations of the lease.
(emphasis in the original). Finally, the lease provided that “[t]he failure or omission of LANDLORD to terminate this lease for any cause given above shall not destroy the right of the LANDLORD to do so later for similar or other causes” and that “[n]othing contained in this agreement shall be construed as waiving any of LANDLORD'S or TENANT'S rights under the laws of the State of North Carolina.”
Between 29 January 2008 and 16 December 2008, Defendant received five separate notices that she had committed violations of the rules and regulations spelled out in the lease agreement. The first violation notice, which was dated 29 January 2008, cited Defendant for having left a trash can outside the door to her apartment. The second notice, dated 24 June 2008, involved Defendant's failure to report a clogged air conditioner line. The third citation, which was dated 22 July 2008, alleged that Defendant left an abandoned vehicle on the property. The fourth notice, which was dated 9 December 2008, stemmed from Tenant's involvement in a confrontation with another tenant near a complex dumpster. The fifth and final notice, which was dated 16 December 2008, alleged that Defendant had failed to permit entry into her unit for maintenance performance on several occasions during 2008.
By means of a letter from Anitra McDaniel, a Senior Property Manager with GEM Management, Inc.,2 dated 26 December 2008 Plaintiff notified Defendant of its decision not to renew the lease due to her “material noncompliance with the terms of the lease such as but not limited to (f) repeated minor violations of the lease” and “(g) one or more major violations of the lease.” 3 According to the 26 December 2008 letter:
On 13 February 2009, Landlord filed a complaint for summary ejectment against Tenant in the small claims division of the Gaston County District Court. 5 On 24 February 2009, the Magistrate entered judgment ordering that Defendant “be removed from and [Plaintiff] be put in possession of the premises described in the complaint.” On 4 March 2009, Defendant noted an appeal to the District Court from the Magistrate's judgment.
On 16 April 2009, this case came on for a trial de novo before Judge John K. Greenlee in the Gaston County District Court. At the conclusion of Plaintiff's evidence, Defendant made an oral motion for involuntary dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 41(b), which the trial court granted. On 29 April 2009, the trial court entered a written order granting Defendant's motion. In its written order, the trial court found as a fact that:
1. [Plaintiff] has failed to meet its burden of proof in that [Plaintiff] waived its claims of [Defendant's] breaches by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ada Liss Grp. (2003) Ltd. v. Sara Lee Corp.
...common law position on "no waiver" clauses.24 "No waiver" clauses have been held enforceable. (See Woodridge Homes Ltd. P'ship v. Gregory, 205 N.C. App. 365, 373, 697 S.E.2d 370, 376 (2010); BB&T Factors Corp. p. Global Airways Freight Forwarding, Inc., No. COA03-1565, 2004 WL 2793323, at *......
-
Mussa v. Palmer-Mussa, COA11–209.
...fact support the trial court's conclusions of law and its judgment.” Woodridge Homes Ltd. Partnership v. Gregory, 205 N.C.App. 365, 371, 697 S.E.2d 370, 375 (2010) (citations omitted). The trial judge's “findings of fact are conclusive on appeal if supported by competent evidence” but the “......
-
In The Matter Of The Estate Of Frances Faison Johnson, COA09-993.
...that sanctions against the other propounders in this case, Ellen Johnson and Susan Fordham, were not “just” because the sanctions that 697 S.E.2d 370 dismissed the whole case were levied against propounder Jefferson only, but the effect of those sanctions was to dismiss the claims of these ......
-
Metrolina Builders, Inc. v. New Beginnings Cmty. Church of Charlotte, Inc.
...and its judgment.” .... “[A] trial court's conclusions of law are reviewable de novo on appeal.”Woodridge Homes Ltd. P'ship v. Gregory, 205 N.C.App. 365, 371–72, 697 S.E.2d 370, 375 (2010) (citations omitted).III. Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in concluding that the actions of......