Quality Built Homes Inc. v. Town of Carthage, 813 S.E.2d 218

Town of Carthage adopted water and sewer impact fee ordinances in 2003; Quality Built Homes and Stafford Land paid significant impact fees and later sued to recover unlawful exactions.
Plaintiffs sued (filed 2013), seeking refunds under N.C.G.S. § 160A-363(e), constitutional relief, and attorneys’ fees; trial court granted summary judgment to Town (2014).
Supreme Court held the ordinances unlawful in Quality Built Homes, Inc. v. Town of Carthage (2016) and remanded limited issues (statute of limitations and estoppel).
Court of Appeals later held plaintiffs’ claims were timely under the 10-year statute (§ 1-56) and not barred by estoppel; Supreme Court granted further review.
Supreme Court here (2018) determined accrual occurred when Town actually exacted the fees (dates between 2005–2009) and held plaintiffs’ claims are governed by the 3-year statute for liabilities created by statute (§ 1-52(2)), therefore time-barred.
The Court rejected the Town’s estoppel-by-acceptance-of-benefits defense because payments were coerced/mandatory, affirming that plaintiffs are not estopped.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
When did the cause of action accrue?	Accrual occurs when Town actually exacted fees (payment dates).	Accrual began when ordinances became effective.	Accrual = date of exaction/payments (May 2006–June 2009 range).
Which statute of limitations applies?	Various: plaintiffs argued 10-year §1-56 (or that later 3-year §1-52(15) amendment is inapplicable/vested).	Town: shorter periods apply (1-year zoning §160A‑364.1; 2-year contract §1‑53(1); or 3-year statutory liability §1‑52(2)).	§1‑52(2) three-year statute governs (liability created by statute).
Are plaintiffs’ claims time-barred?	Claims timely under 10-year (or under the 2017 §1‑52(15) if retroactive).	Claims barred by applicable shorter statutes; last exactions outside three‑year window.	Claims barred: plaintiffs sued more than three years after last exaction.
Is acceptance-of-benefits estoppel a bar?	Plaintiffs: payments coerced; no voluntary benefit, so no estoppel.	Town: plaintiffs accepted benefits (permits/service) and cannot challenge statute.	Rejected Town’s estoppel defense; payments were not voluntary benefits that estop refund.

Williams v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of N. Carolina, 357 N.C. 170 (holding accrual may be upon enforcement where harms are prospective and speculative at enactment)
Sample v. John L. Roper Lumber Co., 150 N.C. 161 (applying continuing-wrong doctrine to repeated trespasses)
Faulkenbury v. Teachers’ & State Emps.’ Ret. Sys. of N.C., 345 N.C. 683 (each underpayment restarted limitations under continuing-wrong principle)
Jewell v. Price, 264 N.C. 459 (single, complete injury does not trigger continuing-wrong accrual)
Virginia-Carolina Peanut Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R. Co., 166 N.C. 62 (payments under coercion are not voluntary benefits)
Point South Properties LLC v. Cape Fear Pub. Util. Auth., 243 N.C. App. 508 (discussed conflicting limitations analyses for impact-fee recovery)