Mid-America Apartments, L.P. v. Block at Church St. Owners Ass'n, Inc.
257 N.C. App. 83
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Mid-America owns a mixed-use development (1225 South Church) benefitted by a perpetual, non-exclusive express easement over Lincoln Street granting pedestrian/vehicular ingress/egress and allowing service/delivery vehicles to park as reasonably necessary.
- The Block (homeowners association) later acquired Lincoln Street and began restriping and allocating parking spaces that interfered with Mid-America’s designated loading zone; disputes escalated after The Block attempted to eliminate the loading zone and to tow vehicles.
- Mid-America sued seeking injunctive relief; the trial court issued interim restraining and preliminary injunctions protecting Mid-America’s easement rights (with a carve-out allowing Code enforcement), and later entered a permanent injunction prohibiting The Block from interfering with Mid-America’s use and enjoyment of the easement.
- The Block argued on appeal that the Easement is void because parking under it would violate the NC Fire Code (fire lane parking prohibited and subject to fines), and alternatively that the permanent injunction impermissibly expands Mid-America’s easement rights.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed: it held the easement was not void or against public policy merely because enforcement of the Fire Code might make some parking conduct unlawful, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in fashioning the permanent injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mid-America) | Defendant's Argument (The Block) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Easement is void or illegal because parking under it would violate the NC Fire Code | Easement valid; any conflict is enforcement of law against particular conduct, not invalidation of the contractual grant | Easement is illegal/void or contrary to public policy because it authorizes parking that would violate Fire Code (subject to fines) | Easement not void; statute penalizing parking in a fire lane does not automatically invalidate an otherwise lawful easement (distinguish illegal contract vs. illegal act) |
| Whether the Permanent Injunction impermissibly expands Mid‑America’s easement rights | Injunction simply enjoins interference with easement; does not grant positive right to violate Fire Code | Injunction improperly prohibits The Block from parking generally, removing dumpsters, and lacks a "reasonable time" limit | No abuse of discretion: injunction enjoins interference consistent with easement and includes explicit carve-out preserving Fire Code enforcement; the injunction does not expand substantive easement rights |
Key Cases Cited
- Marriott Financial Services, Inc. v. Capitol Funds, Inc., 288 N.C. 122 (analysis that a statutory penalty alone does not necessarily void a contract)
- Carolina Water Service of North Carolina, Inc. v. Town of Pine Knoll Shores, 145 N.C. App. 686 (private exclusivity agreement void where it conflicted with municipal statutory authority)
- Hazard v. Hazard, 46 N.C. App. 280 (consent judgment not void where it provided for transfer of benefits federal law would not recognize)
- Botts v. Tibbens, 232 N.C. App. 537 (distinguishing illegality of a contract from legal impossibility of performance)