Plasman v. Decca Furniture (USA), Inc.
253 N.C. App. 484
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Christian G. Plasman formed Bolier & Company, LLC; Decca Furniture (USA), Inc. (Decca USA) acquired a 55% interest and controlled employment decisions. Plasman (45%) and his son Barrett worked for Bolier.
- After alleged multimillion-dollar losses, Decca USA terminated the Plasmans’ employment (Oct. 2012). The Plasmans continued to occupy Bolier offices, opened a Bolier account and diverted ~ $600,000 in customer payments, using funds for wages and expenses.
- A federal court (Judge Vorhees) issued a preliminary injunction (Feb. 27, 2013) enjoining the Plasmans from acting for Bolier and ordering return of diverted funds; the Plasmans did not timely appeal that injunction.
- The case returned to the NC Business Court; Judge Bledsoe entered an order (May 26, 2015) enforcing the federal injunction and ordering the Plasmans to pay $62,191.15 plus interest and provide an accounting. The Plasmans appealed the May 26 Order to this Court.
- While that interlocutory appeal was pending, Judge Bledsoe found the appeal did not affect a substantial right, proceeded with the case, and ultimately held the Plasmans in civil contempt (Feb. 26, 2016) for willful noncompliance with the May 26 Order.
- This Court affirmed the contempt order, holding the Business Court retained jurisdiction to enforce the May 26 Order and that the contempt findings were supported by competent evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plasmans’ appeal of the May 26 Order divested the Business Court of jurisdiction to enter the contempt order | Plasmans: appeal stayed all proceedings; contempt entry was void while appeal pending | Decca: the May 26 Order was nonappealable (did not affect a substantial right); trial court could proceed | Court: Trial court reasonably determined appeal was not of a substantial right; it retained jurisdiction and could enforce the May 26 Order |
| Whether requiring return of diverted funds still serves the order’s purpose | Plasmans: the order impermissibly awards damages and no longer serves any injunctive purpose | Decca: May 26 Order enforces federal injunction; returning funds still effectuates that enforcement | Court: Purpose remains (enforcement of federal injunction); return of funds can still serve that purpose; not a collateral attack on federal injunction |
| Whether noncompliance was willful | Plasmans: acted in good faith, sought clarifications and believed appeal divested jurisdiction; thus not willful | Decca: repeated refusal to return funds after clear orders, procedural evasions, and late filings show deliberate noncompliance | Court: Findings show knowledge and stubborn resistance; willfulness established by competent evidence |
| Whether the Plasmans had present ability to comply (assets considered) | Plasmans: jointly-titled accounts and IRAs are protected/exempt and should not be used to show ability to pay | Decca: court may inventory all assets (including joint accounts and retirement accounts) to determine ability to purge contempt | Court: Joint bank accounts and IRAs were properly considered; contemnor’s present ability assessed by available assets and reasonable measures to liquidate them |
Key Cases Cited
- Veazey v. Durham, 231 N.C. 357 (N.C. 1950) (trial court need not stay proceedings for nonappealable interlocutory appeals; improper interlocutory appeals do not divest jurisdiction)
- RPR & Assocs., Inc. v. Univ. of N. Carolina-Chapel Hill, 153 N.C. App. 342 (N.C. Ct. App.) (authority for trial court to determine reasonableness of appealability and proceed when nonappealable)
- SED Holdings, LLC v. 3 Star Properties, LLC, 791 S.E.2d 914 (N.C. Ct. App.) (trial court may retain jurisdiction to enforce injunction during interlocutory appeal if reasonable to conclude order not immediately appealable)
- Joyner v. Joyner, 256 N.C. 588 (N.C. 1962) (general rule that a perfected appeal divests trial court of jurisdiction; cited in contrasting authority)
- Tetra Tech Tesoro, Inc. v. JAAAT Tech. Servs., LLC, 794 S.E.2d 535 (N.C. Ct. App.) (trial court lacked jurisdiction to hold contempt where appeal affected substantial right involving mandatory injunction controls)
- Bolier & Co., LLC v. Decca Furniture (USA), Inc., 792 S.E.2d 865 (N.C. Ct. App.) (Bolier I) (this Court held the May 26 Order merely enforced the federal injunction and the Plasmans’ interlocutory appeal did not implicate a substantial right)