Gardner v. RinkÂ
255 N.C. App. 279
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Sellers (Charles and Mark Alexander) owned 12.7 acres; Douglas and Ginger Rink planned and built an advertising billboard on the land via a recorded ground lease in May 2003.
- The Rinks later purchased the property, defaulted, reconveyed it to Sellers in Feb. 2004 (deed made no reservation for the lease), and Sellers sold to Plaintiffs (James and Joan Gardner) in Oct. 2004.
- Rink Media, LLC (operated by the Rinks) continued to operate the billboard after Plaintiffs bought the property. Plaintiffs sued in 2013 seeking, among other things, to set aside the recorded lease; Defendants asserted counterclaims including adverse possession and UDTP claims.
- On April 1, 2016, Judge Wagoner granted Defendants summary judgment dismissing Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim but denied summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the lease (finding genuine issues of material fact).
- On April 26, 2016, a different judge granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, set aside the lease as void, and dismissed Defendants’ counterclaims; Defendants appealed both orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May a second Superior Court judge grant summary judgment on an issue that a prior Superior Court judge denied? | The later motion presented new supporting arguments/evidence allowing reconsideration. | The second judge can decide the same legal issue and grant relief. | No. One Superior Court judge may not overrule another on the same legal issue; the second judge erred in granting summary judgment after the first had denied it. |
| Is the denial of summary judgment (the April 1 Order) immediately appealable as affecting a substantial right? | Plaintiffs did not contend the denial affected a substantial right. | Defendants appealed the denial without showing a substantial right was affected. | The denial is interlocutory and not appealable absent a showing of a substantial right; Defendants failed to show such a right, so the appeal is dismissed as to that order. |
Key Cases Cited
- Austin Maint. & Constr., Inc. v. Crowder Constr. Co., 224 N.C. App. 401 (discusses summary judgment burden-shifting and de novo review)
- Cail v. Cerwin, 185 N.C. App. 176 (one Superior Court judge cannot overrule another; limits on successive summary judgment motions)
- Jeffreys v. Raleigh Oaks Joint Venture, 115 N.C. App. 377 (appellant bears burden to show interlocutory order affects a substantial right)