Front Street Construction, LLC v. Colonial Bank, N.A. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC), as receiver for failed bank Colonial Bank, N.A., entered into a purchase and assumption agreement (PAA) with Branch Banking and Trust Co. Some of plaintiffs’ claims against BB&T arose from acts or omissions by Colonial and were not addressed in the PAA. As to those claims, plaintiffs must exhaust their administrative remedies under the Financial Institutional Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) before they can seek judicial remedies.
State v. Squires When a state trooper saw a pickup truck on the side of the road after midnight and stopped to see if any assistance was needed, he was not required to leave after a person outside the truck told him everything was okay. The trooper did not impermissibly extend the stop when he checked on the driver of the vehicle.
State v. Rouse Even though, in his opening and closing statements, defense counsel referred to the arresting officers as “very good officers,” counsel did so in the context of arguing that everyone makes mistakes. Counsel could have reasonably made a tactical decision to refrain from challenging the officers’ general professionalism and competence, while still encouraging the jury to find that the officers arrested defendant on May 23, 2010 as a result of their inadvertent mistakes.
Robinson v. North Carolina Department of Correction Where plaintiff testified that, all the way around his wrist, there were “teeth marks” from too-tight handcuffs and that his wrist was bruised and swollen, but where a drawing plaintiff made to document his injuries indicated that only his left finger and thumb were swollen with no indication of bruising, discoloration, a cut or “teeth marks” laterally around his wrist, the evidence supports the Industrial Commission’s finding that plaintiff’s drawing was inconsistent with his testimony regarding his injuries.
Pickney v. Department of Transportation Even though the parties’ settlement agreement provided that plaintiff could “request a job reallocation or pay grade increase” and that defendant would “cooperate with such a request,” the settlement agreement did not provide plaintiff with any guarantee that he would actually receive a job reallocation or pay grade increase upon request. Even if plaintiff proved that defendant breached the settlement agreement by failing to cooperate with his request for a second job reallocation, plaintiff’s evidence provided no basis upon which the trial court could have properly calculated damages.
Marks v. Marks Where the parties were separated and intended to live separate and apart forever when they entered into an oral contract, and where the contract involves payments for spousal support and from the sale of marital or divisible property, the contract was governed by G.S. § 52-10.1. Because the contract was not in writing and acknowledged by both parties before a certifying officer as defined in G.S. § 52-10(b), it was unenforceable.
Harrell v. Palace Entertainment Holdings, Inc. It was up to the Industrial Commission to decide how much weight to give plaintiff’s testimony about his exposure to sodium hypochlorite; moreover, plaintiff failed to present any expert testimony that his single exposure to bleach placed him at an increased risk of developing reactive airways dysfunction syndrome.
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.
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.
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.
