Cheatham v. Town of Taylortown, 254 N.C. App. 613

In early 2014 Taylortown posted a "condemned" sign on Cheatham’s vacant house at 128 Burch Drive after finding it in poor condition; county health officials later recommended well testing or abandonment depending on water availability.
Cheatham attended a town meeting and sent letters in May 2014; Taylortown replied (30 May 2014) that an inspection occurred and a hearing would be scheduled by certified mail.
Cheatham filed a suit against Taylortown (voluntarily dismissed over a year later); Taylortown made no scheduling effort after the May 2014 letter.
Taylortown adopted a Minimum Housing Ordinance on 19 June 2015 pursuant to N.C.G.S. §§ 160A-441–450; Cheatham filed a new complaint on 21 March 2016.
Before service, Taylortown inspected the property under the new Ordinance; after service it moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (failure to exhaust administrative remedies) and 12(b)(6).
The trial court granted dismissal under 12(b)(1) concluding all claims arose from enforcement of the Ordinance and Cheatham had not exhausted administrative remedies; Cheatham appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because Cheatham failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the Ordinance	Cheatham argued enforcement violated his property rights, obstructed justice, and denied due process and thus the court should hear the case	Taylortown argued that the Ordinance provides exclusive administrative remedies that must be exhausted before judicial review for enforcement actions after 19 June 2015	Court: Dismissal proper as to claims based on enforcement actions taken under the Ordinance (post–19 June 2015) for failure to exhaust administrative remedies
Whether all of Cheatham’s claims arose from actions under the Ordinance	Cheatham treated the dispute as a single continuing wrong subject to court review	Taylortown treated post-Ordinance actions as governed by the statutory administrative scheme	Court: Error to conclude all claims arose under the Ordinance; claims predating 19 June 2015 may proceed and must be reconsidered by the trial court
Whether the trial court needed to consider Rule 12(b)(6) grounds	Cheatham urged relief on constitutional/property grounds in court	Taylortown also moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim	Court: Because it dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under 12(b)(1) it did not reach 12(b)(6); remand allows trial court to reconsider pre-Ordinance claims under either rule

Trivette v. Yount, 217 N.C. App. 477 (2011) (12(b)(1) review is de novo and outside-pleading matters may be considered)
Harrell v. City of Winston-Salem, 22 N.C. App. 386 (1974) (statutory minimum housing scheme enacted to ensure housing standards)
Newton v. City of Winston-Salem, 92 N.C. App. 446 (1988) (cities may adopt procedures to repair, close, or demolish dwellings unfit for habitation)
Justice for Animals, Inc. v. Robeson Cty., 164 N.C. App. 366 (2004) (failure to exhaust statutorily provided administrative remedies deprives court of subject-matter jurisdiction)
Axler v. City of Wilmington, 25 N.C. App. 110 (1975) (dismissing suit where plaintiff failed to follow § 160A-446 administrative route)