Most Important Opinions

1. Contract – Good Faith – Business Expansion – Economic Downturn – Re-Zoning & Building Permit 

   Area Storage, Inc. v. Old Oak Estates Community Association Pursuant to the parties’ contract, if the plaintiff-storage business got its land re-zoned to commercial and obtained a building permit, then plaintiff would deed a 50-foot buffer to defendant -- its neighbor – install a buffer of vegetation, and pay defendant $20,000. Although plaintiff placed the deed and $30,000 in escrow and had the property re-zoned, it decided not to seek a building permit because of an economic downturn. Plaintiff’s failure to seek a building permit was not a breach of its duty of good faith.

2. Real Property – Eminent Domain – Sufficient Notice – Beach Nourishment – Civil Practice – Preliminary Injunction — Municipal 

   Fisher v. Town of Nags Head Plaintiffs, owners of oceanfront properties, sought to preliminarily enjoin a beach nourishment project because the defendant-town did not intend to pay plaintiffs for the easement that the town would need to add sand (and value) to plaintiffs’ properties. The issue of just compensation is one for the condemnation proceeding and not for preliminary injunction. The other issue raised by plaintiffs – that the town’s notice was inadequate – is rejected in part because the notice was sufficient to allow plaintiffs to file suit before the deadline set out in the notice.

3. Tort/Negligence – Fraud – Misrepresentations – Real Property — Mortgages & Guaranties – Foreclosure – Sale Price 

   BOGNC, LLC v. Cornelius NC Self-Storage LLC Only one of the third-party defendants is alleged to have presented falsified records to a foreclosure-sale bidder in order to convince the bidder not to file another upset bid. Since the third-party complaint does not allege any false representations by the other third-party defendants, the fraud claim against those other third-party defendants is dismissed.

4. Civil Practice – Discovery Violation – Damages Evidence – Exclusion 

   Silicon Knights, Inc. v. Epic Games, Inc. In its written discovery responses, plaintiff promised expert evidence to prove its damages, and plaintiff provided a report from its designated expert. However, on Dec. 22, 2011, the court found the expert’s methodology unreliable and excluded his reports and proposed testimony. Because plaintiff has failed to supplement its discovery responses and trial is set for May 14, plaintiff will not be allowed to present evidence of its damages.