Signature Development, LLC v. Sandler Commercial at Union, L.L.C., 207 N.C. App. 576

Signature and Sandler entered a Development Management Agreement to develop Cureton Town Center with Signature as Project Manager; Sandler retained control of the project.
Signature’s duties included planning, development, construction management, marketing, and leasing coordination, with performance subject to Owner’s direction and approval.
Compensation included an Initial Development Fee, Base Development Fee, Leasing Fee, Sales Fee, and a Participation Fee; Signature alleges Sandler did not pay the Participation Fee.
Signature filed a lien on the Property to secure the Participation Fee and pursued a broad litigation course seeking damages and equitable relief; Wells Fargo challenged attachment rights.
Sandler moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) arguing Signature is an unlicensed general contractor under N.C. Gen.Stat. § 87-1, which would bar recovery; the trial court partially granted the motion and struck Signature’s lien and dissolved attachment.
The Court of Appeals reversed in part, holding Signature was not a general contractor under the licensing statute, affirmed the lien-strike, but remanded related attachment issues for Wells Fargo’s and other proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Signature was a general contractor under § 87-1.	Signature acted as Owner's agent, not a general contractor; not required to be licensed.	Signature controlled the project and thus was a general contractor needing a license.	Signature was not a general contractor; trial court erred in dismissing claims.
Whether the contract claims were properly dismissed under the unlicensed-contractor theory.	Claims should survive because Signature was not required to be licensed and acted as project manager.	Unlicensed general contractor cannot recover; claims should be dismissed.	Dismissal reversed; claims can proceed.
Whether the strike of the lien was proper.	Lien was properly filed to secure payment of the Participation Fee.	Lien should be struck because Participation Fee is not a debt for labor or materials.	Lien-striking affirmed; lien not proper under § 44A-8.
Whether the order of attachment should have been dissolved.	Attachment properly secured the potential monetary judgment.	Attachment should be dissolved if claims dismissed or as to the attached property.	Order dissolving attachment reversed; remand for Wells Fargo application proceedings.
Whether this interlocutory order is appealable.	Immediate appeal permitted due to substantial rights at stake and risk of inconsistent verdicts.	Interlocutory orders typically not appealable; certification governs.	Interlocutory order deemed appealable; merits reached.

Helms v. Dawkins, 32 N.C. App. 453 (1977) (control-test approach to determine general contractor status)
Mill-Power Supply Co. v. CVM Assocs., 85 N.C. App. 455 (1987) ( Helms-based control test; general contractor status depends on project-wide control)
Duke Univ. v. Am. Arbitration Ass'n, 64 N.C. App. 75 (1983) (supervision by construction manager; not controlling general contractor status)
Bryan Builders Supply v. Midyette, 274 N.C. 264 (1968) (bright-line rule protecting the public from unlicensed builders)
Zickgraf Enters., Inc. v. Yonce, 63 N.C. App. 166 (1983) (licensing statutes not to shield unjust obligations; innocent party favored)
Goldston v. American Motors Corp., 326 N.C. 723 (1990) (substantial-rights test for appealability of interlocutory orders)
Anderson v. Atlantic Cas. Ins. Co., 134 N.C. App. 724 (1999) (relates to necessity of immediate review to avoid prejudice from non-final orders)
Mill-Power Supply Co. v. CVM Assocs., 85 N.C. App. 455 (1987) (control-based analysis for who is a general contractor)
Dellinger v. Michal, 92 N.C. App. 744 (1989) (warning against using licensing statutes to shield unjust obligations)
Miley v. H.C. Barrett & Assocs., 2002 N.C. App. LEXIS 2167 (2002) (construction-management context showing non-general-contractor role)