Bill Clark Homes of Raleigh, 869 S.E.2d 1

Bill Clark Homes of Raleigh, LLC entered a 2014 development and infrastructure agreement with the Town of Fuquay-Varina to develop a 46-lot subdivision (Sunset Glen); the Agreement required payment of applicable development and capacity fees.
In 2016 the Town invoiced Bill Clark for $241,500 for water & sewer connection/inspection fees, including $195,000 labeled as capacity fees; Bill Clark paid in full on September 1, 2016.
In 2016 the N.C. Supreme Court decided Quality Built Homes I, holding that municipalities may not impose water/sewer impact (capacity) fees for future service expansion under the Public Enterprise Statutes.
Bill Clark sued the Town in August 2019 seeking a declaratory judgment and refund, alleging the Town charged unlawful capacity fees under the Town’s ordinance (and that the Agreement’s capacity-fee provision was unenforceable to that extent).
The Town moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing Bill Clark cannot now attack fees paid under a voluntary contract; the trial court granted dismissal. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Can Bill Clark challenge capacity fees paid under the Agreement as ultra vires under Quality Built Homes I?	Fees were charged pursuant to the Town ordinance for future services and are unlawful under Quality Built Homes I.	Fees were paid as part of a negotiated/bargained-for Agreement; Bill Clark accepted benefits and cannot now void contract terms.	Reversed dismissal: complaint sufficiently alleges fees were assessed under the ordinance for future services, so Quality Built Homes I supports Bill Clark’s claim and dismissal was premature.
2) Was dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) proper?	Complaint states a viable claim; factual dispute over whether fees funded future expansion requires discovery.	The Agreement’s terms defeat the claim; no facts support unlawful future-fee allegation.	No: under liberal Rule 12(b)(6) review, allegations must be taken as true and the Agreement (as pleaded) does not necessarily defeat the claim.
3) Is the claim time‑barred by a one‑year development-regulation limitations period?	Quality Built Homes II treats these claims as unlawful exactions subject to the three‑year statute, not the one‑year development-regulation limitations.	Even if unlawful, the claim is subject to the one‑year statute and is untimely.	Overruled: Quality Built Homes II controls and forecloses the Town’s one‑year limitations argument; the three‑year statute applies.

Quality Built Homes Inc. v. Town of Carthage, 369 N.C. 15, 789 S.E.2d 454 (Sup. Ct. 2016) (municipal water/sewer impact fees for future services exceed authority under Public Enterprise Statutes)
Quality Built Homes Inc. v. Town of Carthage, 371 N.C. 60, 813 S.E.2d 218 (Sup. Ct. 2018) (claims for unlawful exactions are governed by a three‑year statute of limitations)
Broad St. Clinic Found. v. Weeks, 273 N.C. App. 1, 848 S.E.2d 224 (N.C. Ct. App. 2020) (standards for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal review)