Hildebran Heritage & Dev. Ass'n, Inc. v. Town of Hildebran
2017 N.C. App. LEXIS 181
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- The Town of Hildebran owned the Old Hildebran School, a local landmark, and debated demolition vs. rehabilitation in late 2014–early 2015.
- Public interest grew; the Town scheduled a public forum and several council meetings; agendas did not initially announce a vote on demolition for the 26 January 2015 meeting.
- Councilman Lowman privately contacted other council members (but not one known opponent) before the 26 January meeting, then moved at that meeting to amend the agenda to add a demolition vote; the council voted to award a demolition contract to Foothills.
- Plaintiffs (HHDA and Citizens United) sued the Town and Foothills alleging Open Meetings Law violations and bid-procedure claims and sought injunctive relief; trial court granted a partial directed verdict for defendants on contract invalidity and found substantial compliance with the Open Meetings Law except for one earlier closed-session discussion.
- During the appeal the Old School burned down; the court held the demolition contract issue moot because destruction rendered performance impossible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether one-on-one contacts among council members violated the Open Meetings Law | Lowman’s private contacts were purposeful attempts to evade open-meeting requirements and thus unlawful | Private pre-meeting discussions did not substitute for an official meeting because the ultimate vote occurred publicly with minutes and public attendance | No Open Meetings Law violation; directed verdict for defendants affirmed (majority) |
| Whether opportunity for public access to the 26 Jan 2015 meeting was reasonable | Venue was too small; 20–25 people were turned away without audio/visual access, so access was unreasonable | The Town substantially complied; overflow seating/equipment absence alone does not make access unreasonable | Court held access was reasonable as a matter of law; no violation |
| Whether the demolition contract was void due to procedural defects | Contract invalid for Open Meetings and bidding violations | Contract valid; evidence insufficient to void it | Moot on appeal because building burned down; performance impossible, so issue dismissed |
| Whether plaintiffs are entitled to attorney’s fees under the Open Meetings statute | Plaintiffs prevailed in part and the Town violated the law, so fees appropriate | Trial court properly exercised discretion to deny fees given both sides prevailed on significant issues | No abuse of discretion; trial court’s denial of fees affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Sechrest v. Forest Furniture Co., 264 N.C. 216, 141 S.E.2d 292 (recognizing destruction of specific property can make contract performance impossible)
- News & Observer Publ’g Co. v. Interim Bd. of Educ., 29 N.C. App. 37, 223 S.E.2d 580 (public bodies cannot evade open-meetings requirements by resolving into secret committees)
- Gannett Pacific Corp. v. City of Asheville, 178 N.C. App. 711, 632 S.E.2d 586 (definition and scope of "official meeting" under the Open Meetings Law)
- Garlock v. Wake Cty. Bd. of Educ., 211 N.C. App. 200, 712 S.E.2d 158 (reasonableness standard for public access under the Open Meetings Law)
- Turner v. Duke Univ., 325 N.C. 152, 381 S.E.2d 706 (standard for reviewing directed-verdict sufficiency)