Bell v. Mozley
216 N.C. App. 540
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Bell, a resident of Beaufort County, South Carolina, also owns a second home in Blowing Rock, North Carolina; Mozley, a South Carolina resident, is employed as a senior vice president and president of Crescent Resources' residential division, headquartered in Charlotte, NC.
- Crescent began a Burke County, NC development project (adjacent to Caldwell County) in 2005–2006, with Mozley leading the project and traveling to NC up to six times per year and communicating with the Charlotte office by phone twice a month and by email weekly.
- Bell sued Mozley in Caldwell County Superior Court on 30 September 2009 for alienation of affections and criminal conversation, alleging Mozley engaged in an adulterous relationship with Bell's wife Lisa Bell (married 2000; children A.B. 2002, N.B. 2005) and noting a December 2006 New Year's visit to Bell's Blowing Rock home.
- Plaintiff alleged that beginning in early 2007 Mozley initiated an adulterous relationship with Lisa; Bell and Lisa separated in July 2008 and divorced in July 2009.
- Mozley moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter and personal jurisdiction (12(b)(1) and 12(b)(2)) and later sought summary judgment; Mozley submitted affidavits asserting NC residence and that his only NC presence with Bell/Lisa was December 2006; Lisa claimed NC residency as well.
- Plaintiff submitted affidavits and depositions showing Mozley admitted sexual relations with Lisa in SC, NY, CA, and HI, and that Bell discovered vaginal lubricant in July 2008; Bell conceded most alleged acts occurred in SC and that NC witnesses were within 50 miles of the parties, with little evidence of NC-based conduct relevant to the claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court properly exercised personal jurisdiction over Mozley | Bell contends Mozley had sufficient minimum contacts due to Crescent's NC activities and Mozley's NC visits and communications. | Mozley argues there are no substantial NC contacts related to the alleged torts and that due process is not satisfied for jurisdiction. | The trial court erred; no due process minimum contacts supported general or specific jurisdiction. |
| Whether general jurisdiction exists based on continuous and systematic contacts | Bell asserts Crescent's NC operations and Mozley's role create continuous contacts with NC. | Mozley argues contacts are employment-related and not connected to Bell's claims, making general jurisdiction improper. | No general jurisdiction; employment-related contacts insufficient to constitute general due process for these claims. |
| Whether forum-state interests or forum-shopping concerns justify NC jurisdiction | Bell argues NC should provide a forum due to local tort law interests (though SC abolished these torts). | Mozley argues NC lacks interest and forum-shopping concerns are evident; Eluhu controls | NC interest not sufficient and forum-shopping concern present; due process violated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bauer v. Douglas Aquatics, Inc., 698 S.E.2d 757 (2010) (immediate appeal from adverse ruling on jurisdiction; standard of review for personal jurisdiction)
- Replacements, Ltd. v. MidweSterling, 515 S.E.2d 46 (1999) (de novo review of whether findings support personal jurisdiction)
- Koufman v. Koufman, 408 S.E.2d 729 (1991) (binding findings of fact when not challenged on appeal)
- Eluhu v. Rosenhaus, 583 S.E.2d 707 (2003) (forum-shopping concerns where torts occur out-of-state; NC interest and fairness in jurisdiction)
- Tejal Vyas, LLC v. Carriage Park Ltd. P'ship, 600 S.E.2d 881 (2004) (two-step personal jurisdiction analysis; minimum contacts and reasonableness)
- First Union Nat'l Bank of Del. v. Bankers Wholesale Mortgage, LLC, 570 S.E.2d 217 (2002) (factors for determining minimum contacts and reasonableness)