230 N.C. App. 259
N.C. Ct. App.2013Background
- DMV charged Twin County with six violations of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-183.7B(a)(3) and a Type I civil penalty for improper safety inspections.
- Twin County appeared pro se at the DMV hearing; Cherry acted as its representative.
- Hearing Officer Brown found six violations, imposed a $1,500 civil penalty, and suspended Twin County’s license for 1,080 days.
- Twin County sought review; the Commissioner upheld the decision.
- A superior court reversed and remanded for a new hearing with Twin County represented by counsel; the DMV appealed.
- The key issue is whether corporations must be represented by counsel in DMV hearings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether corporations may appear pro se in DMV hearings | Twin County argues pro se is allowed | DMV contends corporations must be represented by counsel | Corporations must be represented by licensed attorneys |
| Applicability of Allied Environmental reasoning to DMV hearings | Allied would allow non-attorney representation in some proceedings | DMV not within Allied’s OAH scope; Allied does not control DMV hearings | Allied does not control DMV hearings; Lexis-Nexis governs |
| Sufficiency of evidence vs remand necessity | Final agency decision supported by substantial evidence | Remand required for proper representation and new hearing | Court affirmed remand for a new hearing with counsel; did not reach substantial-evidence review |
Key Cases Cited
- Lexis-Nexis, Div. of Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Travishan Corp., 155 N.C. App. 205, 573 S.E.2d 547 (2002) (corporation must be represented by counsel; exceptions limited)
- Allied Envtl. Servs., PLLC v. N.C. Dep’t of Envtl. & Natural Res., 187 N.C. App. 227, 653 S.E.2d 11 (2007) (OAH context; Allied interpretation not controlling for DMV hearings; not applicable to DMV)
- Seawell, Attorney General v. Motor Club, 209 N.C. 624, 184 S.E. 540 (1936) (corporation cannot practice law; personal right of individuals)