Brookline Residential, LLC v. City of Charlotte, 251 N.C. App. 537

In 2008 Clarion-Reames (original developer) obtained final plat approval for part of the Brookline Phase 1 subdivision and procured a surety performance bond from International Fidelity Insurance Company (IFIC) naming the City of Charlotte as obligee to guarantee public road improvements estimated at $683,500.
Clarion-Reames built only nine homes, left some bonded road work unfinished, and ceased development; the lender foreclosed in 2011 and Brookline purchased the property in 2012.
Before rezoning/purchase Brookline inquired about the bond and the City confirmed a bond remained in place; the City warned that changes to approved plans could make a successor developer responsible for revised improvements.
Brookline rezoned the property (approved 2013) and recorded a new subdivision plan (approved 2014) that altered the original road-improvement scope; Brookline committed to perform the Altered Road Improvements itself.
Brookline asked the City to call the original bond to fund completion of those portions of the Original Road Improvements that remained in the Altered plan; the City declined, Brookline sued the City and IFIC seeking declaratory/injunctive relief to compel bond enforcement and alternatively damages.
The trial court granted summary judgment to Defendants; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Brookline lacked a legal basis to compel the City to call the bond or to obtain other relief relating to the bond.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a successor developer may compel the City to enforce a performance bond obtained by a prior developer after that developer defaulted	Brookline: the City’s statutory authority to require performance guarantees implies an obligation to enforce bonds when a principal defaults; Brookline (as successor) may compel enforcement	City/IFIC: statutes and the City ordinance do not create a duty to call a bond or permit a successor developer to force the City to enforce it; the City has discretion	Held: No duty to enforce; Brookline cannot compel the City to call the bond and lacks legal rights under the bond
Whether the bond remained enforceable after rezoning/plan changes such that the City had to call it	Brookline: bond covers original improvements that overlap the revised plan and thus remains a source of funding	City: rezoning and plan changes, and Brookline’s affirmative commitments, altered responsibilities; moreover, no statutory duty to call bond	Held: Court did not need to decide this issue; disposition of first issue was dispositive, but court noted Brookline was warned changes could shift responsibility and had committed to perform altered improvements

Town of Pineville v. Atkinson/Dyer/Watson Architects, P.A., 114 N.C. App. 497 (holding a public performance bond is a contract)
Power & Light Co. v. Employment Sec. Comm’n of N.C., 363 N.C. 562 (out-of-jurisdiction opinions may be instructive)
Ponderosa Fire Dist. v. Coconino County, 235 Ariz. 597 (successor developer cannot compel county to call bonds where statute and ordinance grant discretion)
LDS Dev., LLC v. City of Eugene, 280 Or. App. 611 (city code and statutes did not require the city to exercise its right to call a bond)