TOWN OF MIDLAND, a North Carolina municipal corporation v. TONEY L. HARRELL and T.L. HARRELL‘S LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC., a North Carolina business corporation
No. 120A22
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA
Filed 20 October 2023
ALLEN, Justice.
Anthony Fox, Daniel Peterson, and Jasmine Little for plaintiff-appellee Town of Midland.
Scarbrough, Scarbrough & Trilling, PLLC, by James E. Scarbrough and John F. Scarbrough, for defendants-appellants Toney L. Harrell and T.L. Harrell‘s Land Development Company, Inc.
ALLEN, Justice.
The primary issue in this case is whether the Town of Midland satisfied certain procedural requirements of state law and its own ordinances in filing a lawsuit against defendant developers over their failure to repair the streets in a subdivision located within the Town‘s corporate limits. We hold that the Town complied with the relevant provisions, and we therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
I. Background
Defendants Toney L. Harrell and T.L. Harrell‘s Land Development Company are the developers of Bethel Glen, a residential subdivision located inside the corporate boundaries of the Town of Midland. In an earlier round of litigation, defendants challenged a notice of violation (NOV) issued by the Town‘s zoning administrator on 18 March 2014. Harrell v. Midland Bd. of Adjustment (Midland I), 251 N.C. App. 526, 2016 N.C. App. LEXIS, at *8-9 (2016) (unpublished). The NOV alleged that the subdivision‘s streets were “in a state of continuous deterioration” that could “pose a potential threat to public safety.” According to the NOV, the poor condition of the streets violated the requirement in the Midland Development Ordinance (MDO) that developers “maintain streets until acceptance by adoption of a resolution accepting the street(s) for public maintenance.”
Defendants sought review by the Town‘s board of adjustment, which upheld the NOV. Id. at *9. After an appeal to the Superior Court, Cabarrus County, resulted in an order affirming the board‘s decision, defendants took their case to the Court of Appeals. Id. On 30 December 2016, the Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Midland I, affirming the trial court‘s order and concluding that, because the Town had never assumed responsibility for the subdivision‘s roads, defendants remained under a “continuing responsibility to maintain [those] roads.” Id. at *17, *21. On 8 June 2017, this Court denied defendants’ petition for discretionary review. Harrell v. Midland Bd. of Adjustment, 369 N.C. 751, 800 S.E.2d 418 (2017).
While defendants’ appeal in Midland I was pending at the Court of Appeals, the Town‘s zoning administrator issued civil citations to defendants on 14 October 2016, 10 December 2016, and 11 December 2016 imposing civil penalties of $100.00, $300.00, and $500.00, respectively. Each citation alleged that the roads in Bethel Glen remained in need of repair and stated that each day‘s continuing violation of the MDO constituted “a separate and distinct offense.” Thereafter, the zoning administrator issued defendants a civil citation with a $500.00 civil penalty every day from 12 December 2016 until 16 January 2017.
On 17 January 2017, the zoning administrator sent defendants a demand letter informing them that they owed civil penalties totaling $18,900.00. The letter threatened defendants with litigation unless they paid the civil penalties and brought the subdivision‘s roads into compliance with the MDO within thirty days. Defendants took no action in response to the letter, and the zoning administrator issued additional citations.
On 22 June 2017, the Town filed suit against defendants in the Superior Court, Cabarrus County, seeking a mandatory injunction and an order of abatement requiring defendants to repair the subdivision‘s roads. The complaint further requested that the court order defendants to pay the Town a total of $97,400.00 in civil penalties, “plus interest, costs and attorneys’ fees as allowed by law.” In calculating defendants’ civil penalties, the Town added to the $18,900.00 allegedly due as of 17 January 2017 further penalties of $500.00 per day for each day between 17 January 2017 and 22 June 2017, the filing date of the action. The parties subsequently filed motions for summary judgment. Before the trial court ruled on the motions, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The motion to dismiss asserted that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the Town Council had not voted to authorize the lawsuit against defendants. On 10 September 2019, the Town Council passed a resolution “retroactively approv[ing] and ratif[ying] the filing of the Complaint effective June 22, 2017.”
In two orders dated 17 August 2020, the trial court denied defendants’ summary judgment motion but granted the Town‘s summary judgment motion and entered a mandatory permanent injunction and an order of abatement that essentially directed defendants to bring the roads in the Bethel Glen subdivision into compliance with standards promulgated by the North Carolina Department of Transportation. Defendants filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals from those orders. They also filed a motion for relief with the trial court, again claiming that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the Town‘s complaint. The motion for relief further asserted that defendants were entitled to recover attorney‘s fees from the Town under
On 15 March 2022, a divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed “the trial court‘s entry of summary judgment in the Town‘s favor regarding civil penalties.” Town of Midland v. Harrell, 282 N.C. App. 354, 370 (2022). The Court of Appeals majority rejected defendants’ argument that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Under the majority‘s reading of the MDO, the “Town Council was not required to adopt a resolution before the Town filed its complaint.” Id. at 361-62.
The trial court‘s mandatory permanent injunction and abatement order did not survive appellate scrutiny, however. The Court of Appeals majority concluded that the order was not detailed enough to satisfy Rule 65(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires “[e]very order granting an injunction . . . [to] be specific in terms” and to “describe in reasonable detail, and not by reference to the complaint or other document, the act or acts enjoined or restrained[.]”
Finally, the Court of Appeals majority reversed the trial court‘s denial of defendants’ request for attorney‘s fees. The majority agreed with defendants that state law did not allow the Town to impose civil penalties while defendants’ appeal of the NOV was pending.2 Id. at 369. Although the Town later dismissed the penalties unlawfully assessed during that period, its action did “not relieve the Town of its liability [under
The dissenting judge at the Court of Appeals would have held that the Town
lacked standing to file its complaint against defendants because the Town Council did not adopt its resolution authorizing the lawsuit before the complaint was filed. Id. at 371, 376-77 (Tyson, J., concurring
The dissenting judge agreed with the majority that the mandatory permanent injunction and abatement order did not satisfy Rule 65(d) and that the Town was liable for attorney‘s fees. Id. at 377-78, 380. He argued, though, that the Court of Appeals should reconsider whether defendants remained responsible for the roads in the Bethel Glen subdivision. See id. at 379 (“The Town has collected ad valorem taxes from [defendants] and the property owners of Bethel Glen subdivision since bringing the subdivision into the Town‘s limits. The Town cannot now shirk its maintenance and repair obligations for normal wear and tear to the streets and shift them onto [defendants].“).
On 19 April 2022, defendants filed a notice of appeal with this Court based on the dissent in the Court of Appeals. See
II. Standard of Review
“Because standing is a question of law, we review the issue de novo.” Violette v. Town of Cornelius, 283 N.C. App. 565, 569 (2022), disc. rev. denied, 384 N.C. 33 (2023). When reviewing a matter de novo, this Court “considers the matter anew and freely substitutes its own judgment” for that of the lower courts. In re Greens of Pine Glen Ltd. P‘ship, 356 N.C. 642, 647 (2003).
III. Analysis
In their principal brief to this Court, defendants contend that the trial court should have dismissed the Town‘s lawsuit for lack of standing. According to defendants,
In arguing that it had standing to file suit against defendants, the Town points out that
A. The Town‘s Standing to File a Civil Action Against Defendants
“Standing refers to whether a party has a sufficient stake in an otherwise justiciable controversy such that he or she may properly seek adjudication of the matter.” Am. Woodland Indus. v. Tolson, 155 N.C. App. 624, 626 (2002). As we have explained elsewhere, “[t]he standing requirements articulated by this Court are not themselves mandated by the text of the North Carolina Constitution.” Cmty. Success Initiative v. Moore, 384 N.C. 194, 206 (2023). Rather, “[t]his Court has developed standing requirements out of a ‘prudential self-restraint’ that respects the separation of powers by narrowing the circumstances in which the judiciary will second guess the actions of the legislative and executive branches.” Id. at 206-07 (quoting Comm. to Elect Dan Forest v. Emps. Pol. Action Comm., 376 N.C. 558, 599 (2021)).
If a plaintiff does not have standing to assert a claim for relief, the trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claim. Willowmere Cmty. Ass‘n, Inc. v. City of Charlotte, 370 N.C. 553, 561 (2018). “[S]tanding is measured at the time the pleadings are filed.” Quesinberry v. Quesinberry, 196 N.C. App. 118, 123 (2009). In other words, a plaintiff must have standing at the time of filing to have standing at all. Subsequent events cannot confer standing retroactively. See Simeon v. Hardin, 339 N.C. 358, 369 (1994) (“When standing is questioned, the proper inquiry is whether an actual controversy existed ‘at the time the pleading . . . is filed.’ ” (quoting Sharpe v. Park Newspapers of Lumberton, Inc., 317 N.C. 579, 584 (1986))); Sharpe, 317 N.C. at 585 (“[T]he basic rule [is] that ‘the jurisdiction of a court depends upon the state of affairs existing at the time it is invoked.’ ” (quoting In re Peoples, 296 N.C. 109, 144 (1978))).
In arguing that the Town lacked standing to file its complaint, both the dissent in the Court of Appeals and defendants emphasize that the Town Council did not adopt a resolution authorizing the action until two years after the complaint was filed. Town of Midland, 282 N.C. App. at 377 (Tyson, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). According to them, the Town‘s failure to obtain the Town Council‘s approval prior to filing deprived the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint. We disagree.
“In North Carolina there is no legal distinction between a city, a town, or a village. Each is a municipality . . . .” David M. Lawrence, An Overview of Local Government, in County and Municipal Government in North Carolina 5 (2d ed. 2014). Municipalities are entirely creations of the General Assembly and have only those powers delegated to them by legislative enactments.3 King v. Town of Chapel Hill, 367 N.C. 400, 404 (2014). Such legislative enactments can take the form of local acts or laws of statewide application.
Many of the statewide laws granting powers to municipalities reside in Chapter 160A (titled “Cities and Towns“) of the General Statutes. See, e.g.,
included extensive provisions conferring an array of powers on municipalities over zoning and other land development matters. In 2019, the General Assembly enacted legislation recodifying those provisions as Chapter 160D (titled “Local Planning and Development Regulation“). See An Act to Clarify, Consolidate,
Chapter 160A likewise endows municipalities with substantial authority to enforce their ordinances through criminal or civil proceedings. In general, if the text of an ordinance so provides, a violation of the ordinance constitutes a Class 3 misdemeanor.
Of particular importance to this case are the mechanisms by which municipalities may exercise the regulatory and enforcement powers bestowed on them by the General Assembly. According to
In arguing that
This Court is not bound by City of Albemarle, but we do not read that decision to hold that a municipality‘s elected governing board must always act by resolution to authorize a lawsuit. Section 160A-12 allows the board to act “by ordinance or resolution.” (Emphasis added.) As the Court of Appeals majority in this case correctly remarked, the city lost in City of Albemarle because, “[p]ursuant to its ordinances, [the city council] was required to adopt a resolution to bring suit through outside counsel.” Town of Midland, 282 N.C. App. at 362 (emphasis added). Hence, even if we assume that City of Albemarle was rightly decided, no
“The rules applicable to the construction of statutes are equally applicable to the construction of municipal ordinances.” Cogdell v. Taylor, 264 N.C. 424, 428 (1965). Accordingly, when a court is called upon to interpret a municipal ordinance, “[t]he basic rule is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the municipal legislative body.” George v. Town of Edenton, 294 N.C. 679, 684 (1978). If the words of the ordinance “are plain and unambiguous, the court need look no further” in search of legislative intent. Westminster Homes, Inc. v. Town of Cary Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 354 N.C. 298, 304 (2001). On the other hand, “if the language is unclear, judicial construction may be required.” Id. Judicial construction typically involves examining the ordinance‘s other provisions or the text of related ordinances for evidence of what the ambiguous provision was intended to accomplish. See George, 294 N.C. at 684 (“We must therefore consider this section of the ordinance as a whole, and the provisions in pari materia must be construed together[.]” (citations omitted)).
Here the key MDO provision in dispute reads in pertinent part:
If payment [of a civil penalty] is not received or equitable settlement reached within thirty (30) days after demand for payment is made, the matter shall be referred to legal counsel for institution of a civil action in the appropriate division of the General Courts of Justice for recovery of the civil penalty. Provided, however, if the civil penalty is not paid within the time prescribed, the Planning, Zoning, & Subdivision Administrator may have a criminal summons or warrant issued against the violator.
Town of Midland, N.C., Dev. Ordinance art. 23, § 23.7-6 (2021) [hereafter nonpayment provision] (first emphasis added).
The use of the passive voice in the first sentence of the nonpayment provision creates the need for judicial interpretation. The first sentence declares that at a certain point the matter of nonpayment “shall be referred” to legal counsel for the filing of a lawsuit, but the text does not expressly assign responsibility for making the referral.
When the nonpayment provision‘s first and second sentences are read together, they strongly imply that the duty of making the referral belongs to the zoning administrator. The second sentence endows the zoning administrator with discretion over whether to pursue criminal charges against offenders who fail to pay their civil penalties. This is significant authority that the Town Council cannot have granted lightly. Unquestionably, then, the Town Council had the zoning administrator in mind when it adopted the nonpayment provision.
Other sections in Article 23 (titled “Administration and Enforcement“) of the MDO reinforce this view. Perhaps most tellingly, subsection 23.2-1 provides: ”Unless specifically set forth otherwise in this ordinance, the Town of Midland [zoning administrator] shall be the Enforcement Officer with the duty of administering and enforcing the provisions of this Ordinance.”
In arguing to the contrary, defendants assert expressio unius est exclusio alterius, “i.e., the expression of one thing is the
Consequently, according to defendants, “[h]ad the Town Council desired to delegate its authority to institute civil actions in zoning matters, it could have easily done so in the same manner as the other tasks assigned to the Zoning Administrator.”
Canons of construction are interpretive guides, not metaphysical absolutes. They should not be applied to reach outcomes plainly at odds with legislative intent. We disagree with defendants’ application of expressio unius est exclusio alterius to the nonpayment provision, in part because, as we have already remarked, subsection 23.2-1 unambiguously charges the zoning administrator with administering and enforcing Article 23 except where Article 23 expressly assigns a particular task to someone else. See, e.g.,
In their reply brief to this Court, defendants quote
Section 160D-402 sets out a nonexclusive list of duties that may be assigned to employees charged with administering and enforcing a county or municipal development ordinance. These duties include “recommending bringing judicial actions against actual or threatened violations.”
According to defendants, “[b]y enacting
Accepting defendants’ reading of
The MDO authorized the Town to file suit against defendants without first obtaining approval of the Town Council. There is no merit to defendants’ argument that the Town lacked standing.
B. Responsibility for Road Maintenance in Bethel Glen
As explained above, a different panel of the Court of Appeals concluded in Midland I
The Court of Appeals majority considered itself bound by the earlier panel‘s ruling, observing that the panel had based its decision “on the same record relied upon by our dissenting colleague.” Town of Midland, 282 N.C. App. at 365.
This Court previously upheld the Town‘s notice of violation against [defendants] and concluded [defendants] have an “ongoing obligation to maintain the subdivision streets pursuant to [Town] ordinance.” In re Harrell, 251 N.C. App. 526, 2016 WL 7984233, at *5 (emphasis added). This Court‘s prior determination that [defendants], and not the Town, are obligated to maintain the subdivision roads until the Town has approved a petition by [defendants] to assume responsibility, is binding on our decision today. See N.C. Nat‘l Bank v. Va. Carolina Builders, 307 N.C. 563, 567, 299 S.E.2d 629, 631-32 (1983) (“Once a panel of the Court of Appeals has decided a question in a given case that decision becomes the law of the case and governs other panels which may thereafter consider the case. Further, since the power of one panel of the Court of Appeals is equal to and coordinate with that of another, a succeeding panel of that court has no power to review the decision of another panel on the same question in the same case.“).
Id. (third alteration in original).
We agree with the Court of Appeals majority that it was bound by Midland I. Nothing in the record indicates that the Town agreed to accept responsibility for the roads in the Bethel Glen subdivision after the panel in Midland I issued its decision in 2016. Furthermore, the question of defendants’ ongoing responsibility for the roads was not properly before the Court of Appeals in this case because defendants did not argue it in their brief to that tribunal. See
IV. Conclusion
The Town complied with state law and the MDO when it filed suit against defendants over their failure to maintain the roads in the Bethel Glen subdivision. The Court of Appeals majority rightly determined that it was bound by the prior decision of another panel holding defendants responsible for those roads. We therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
AFFIRMED.
Justice RIGGS did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.