Union Cty. v. Town of MarshvilleÂ
255 N.C. App. 441
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Union County and the Town of Marshville had a 1978 contract for collection, transport, and treatment of Marshville sewage; County charged user fees to cover operations and capital replacement.
- The system transported Marshville sewage up to 30 miles to Monroe; County performed major repairs between 2005–2011 costing over $12 million (partly grant-funded).
- The contract term was extended to 2011; no new agreement was reached and Marshville stopped paying user fees in 2014.
- County sued in April 2016 to collect about $467,000 in unpaid fees; Marshville counterclaimed asserting equitable ownership of the system and sought dismissal of County’s claims.
- At a motions hearing the trial court: (1) entered a preliminary injunction (later mooted by consent), (2) on Oct. 24 granted in part and denied in part County’s judgment-on-the-pleadings motion (dismissing some Marshville counterclaims), and (3) on Oct. 27 granted in part and denied in part Marshville’s motion to dismiss (dismissing some County claims but allowing a breach claim to proceed).
- Marshville appealed the Oct. 24 and Oct. 27 orders as interlocutory, arguing (a) governmental immunity barred County’s tort claims and (b) dismissal of Marshville’s counterclaims threatens the substantial right to avoid inconsistent verdicts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether governmental immunity bars County’s tort claims | County argues its claims fall outside immunity because the sewer operation is proprietary | Marshville contends immunity shields it from tort liability and trial court erred in allowing tort claims | Court held immunity inapplicable: operation/maintenance of sewer systems is a proprietary function, so interlocutory appeal on immunity ground fails |
| Whether dismissal of Marshville’s counterclaims affects substantial right to avoid inconsistent verdicts (permitting interlocutory appeal) | County implies no substantial right lost and no real risk of inconsistent verdicts | Marshville argues reversal could produce inconsistent verdicts and thus immediate review is warranted | Court rejected the argument as speculative and circular; Marshville failed to show a substantial right, so interlocutory appeal dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Stanford v. Paris, 364 N.C. 306 (interlocutory appeals are disfavored; appealability requires deprivation of a substantial right)
- Consumers Power v. Power Co., 285 N.C. 434 (no appeal from interlocutory orders unless a substantial right is affected)
- Estate of Williams v. Pasquotank Cnty. Parks & Recreation Dep't, 366 N.C. 195 (explaining governmental vs. proprietary functions for immunity analysis)
- Harrison v. City of Sanford, 177 N.C. App. 116 (operation and maintenance of sewer systems is a proprietary function)
- Hartman v. Walkertown Shopping Ctr., 113 N.C. App. 632 (avoidance of inconsistent verdicts can be a substantial right in limited circumstances)
- Bostic Packaging, Inc. v. City of Monroe, 149 N.C. App. 825 (municipalities not immune from tort liability in operation and maintenance of sewer systems)