Powell v. City of Newton
364 N.C. 562
| N.C. | 2010Background
- City of Newton began park construction on land abutting Powell's property; Shaver cleared timber and Dickson designed the project.
- Powell filed a 2 December 2005 complaint alleging trespass and wrongful timber removal; city sued third parties for indemnification.
- Settlement discussion occurred in open court on 14 November 2007; powell allegedly agreed to quitclaim his land for $30,000 from the city and $5,000 from each third party.
- Court questioned compliance and noted city council approval; funds were transferred to Powell’s attorney's trust account during settlement process.
- On 21 November 2007, emails circulated draft memorializing the settlement; 27 November and 12 December emails refined the document; Powell later refused to sign.
- Trial court held Powell validly consented and enforced the settlement; Court of Appeals affirmed as to non-violation of statute of frauds; the issue of judicial estoppel was later invoked by the Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the settlement contingent on city council approval? | Powell | City | Contingency did not prevent binding agreement |
| Does the agreement satisfy the statute of frauds signature requirement? | Powell | City/Shaver/Dickson | Signatures lacking; not satisfied under writing requirement |
| Can judicial estoppel enforce the agreement despite lack of signed writing? | Powell | City/Shaver/Dickson | Judicial estoppel applies to enforce |
| Should the case be remanded for factual resolution of the settlement's existence and terms? | Powell | City/Shaver/Dickson | Court affirmed with modification; remand not required |
Key Cases Cited
- Bolton Corp. v. T.A. Loving Co., 317 N.C. 623 (1986) (condition precedent binds when satisfied)
- Chavis v. S. Life Ins. Co., 318 N.C. 259 (1986) (conditions precedent govern contract formation)
- Foreclosure of Goforth Props., Inc. v. Birdsall, 334 N.C. 369 (1993) (describes when a contract right arises under conditions)
- New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (2001) (judicial estoppel protects integrity of judicial process)
- Whitacre P'ship v. Biosignia, Inc., 358 N.C. 1 (2004) (estoppel factors and application in NC)
- Callaham v. Arenson, 239 N.C. 619 (1954) (estoppel-based limitations in fraud contexts)
- Brooks v. Hackney, 329 N.C. 166 (1991) (equitable considerations in applying estoppel)
- Grantham v. Grantham, 205 N.C. 363 (1933) (statute of frauds and exceptions historically resisted)
- Herring v. Volume Merch., Inc., 249 N.C. 221 (1958) (origins and purpose of the NC statute of frauds)