251 N.C. App. 771
N.C. Ct. App.2017Background
- Jackson/Hill Aviation operated an airport under a lease/management contract with the Town of Ocean Isle Beach; the contract required the facility to be open during specified "regular business hours" and to comply with applicable laws and regulations.
- Dispute arose when Jackson/Hill did not staff the airport during all business hours; the town insisted the lease required full-time, manned operations per a town ordinance and eventually changed the locks and took over airport operations.
- Jackson/Hill sued the town and individual officials for wrongful eviction, breach of the lease and covenant of quiet enjoyment, UDTP, tortious interference, trespass, and sought declaratory and injunctive relief.
- The town moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), attaching the municipal ordinance to its motion and arguing that the complaint (plus the attached lease and ordinance) showed Jackson/Hill breached the lease as a matter of law.
- The trial court granted dismissal; the Court of Appeals reversed, holding the municipal ordinance could not be considered on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion because it was not alleged in the complaint and North Carolina law forbids taking judicial notice of municipal ordinance provisions at that stage.
- The Court further noted that even if the ordinance were considered, Jackson/Hill raised viable waiver and estoppel defenses that precluded judgment as a matter of law on the pleadings; the case was remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly considered a municipal ordinance attached to the town's Rule 12(b)(6) motion and dismissed claims based on it | Jackson/Hill: Complaint suffices; the ordinance is not alleged in the complaint and thus cannot be considered on a 12(b)(6) motion | Town: The ordinance (attached to the motion) shows Jackson/Hill failed to staff the airport and therefore breached the lease as a matter of law | Reversed: Court may not consider the municipal ordinance on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion where it is not alleged in the complaint; dismissal was improper |
| Whether, even if the ordinance were considered, Jackson/Hill could present defenses (waiver, estoppel) that preclude judgment on the pleadings | Jackson/Hill: The town waived enforcement and is estopped by its conduct and statements; factual disputes exist | Town: Contract and ordinance unambiguously require full-time staffing; no defense defeats that as a matter of law | Held: Even assuming the ordinance applied, Jackson/Hill pleaded viable waiver and estoppel defenses that prevent judgment as a matter of law; factual issues remain |
Key Cases Cited
- McEwen Funeral Serv., Inc. v. Charlotte City Coach Lines, Inc., 248 N.C. 146, 102 S.E.2d 816 (court cannot take judicial notice of municipal ordinance provisions)
- Weaver v. Saint Joseph of the Pines, Inc., 187 N.C. App. 198, 652 S.E.2d 701 (courts evaluating Rule 12(b)(6) may only consider the complaint and attachments)
- Shannon v. Testen, 777 S.E.2d 153 (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Wheeler v. Wheeler, 299 N.C. 633, 263 S.E.2d 763 (waiver principles in contract enforcement)
- Parkersmith Props. v. Johnson, 136 N.C. App. 626, 525 S.E.2d 491 (equitable estoppel principles applicable against governmental defendants)
- Carpenter v. Carpenter, 189 N.C. App. 755, 659 S.E.2d 762 (procedural point that Rule 12(c) motion requires closed pleadings)