4/12/2018 T he Murky Wa te rs b e twe e n Sma ll Cla ims a nd - - PDF document

4/12/2018 1 T he Murky Wa te rs b e twe e n Sma ll Cla ims a nd Civil Distric t Co urt

Pr esenter s: Sc ho o l o f Go ve rnme nt Pro fe sso r Do na L e wa ndo wski & Distric t Co urt Judg e Be c ky T in, Distric t 26

Sma ll Cla ims Sub je c t Ma tte r Jurisd ic tio n

...[A] sma ll c la im a c tio n is a c ivil a c tio n whe re in:

• 1. T

he a mo unt in c o ntro ve rsy…do e s no t e xc e e d te n tho usa nd do lla rs ($10,000); a nd

• 2. T

he o nly princ ipa l re lie f pra ye d is mo ne ta ry, o r the re c o ve ry o f spe c ific pe rso na l pro pe rty, o r summa ry e je c tme nt, o r a ny c o mb ina tio n o f the fo re g o ing in pro pe rly jo ine d c la ims; a nd

• 3. T

he pla intiff ha s re q ue ste d a ssig nme nt to a ma g istra te in the ma nne r pro vide d in this Artic le .

NCGS Se c tio n 7A-210.

NCGS Sec tion 7A-211 Small c laim ac tions assignable to magistr ates. I n the inte re st o f spe e dy a nd c o nve nie nt de te rmina tio n, the c hie f distric t judg e ma y, in his disc re tio n, b y spe c ific

• rde r o r g e ne ra l rule , a ssig n to a ny ma g istra te o f his distric t

a ny sma ll c la im a c tio n pe nding in his distric t if the de fe nda nt is a re side nt o f the c o unty in whic h the ma g istra te re side s. I f the re is mo re tha n o ne de fe nda nt, a t le a st o ne o f the m must b e a b o na fide re side nt o f the c o unty in whic h the ma g istra te re side s.

4/12/2018 2

A F ish Just Jumpe d I nto Yo ur Bo a t.

Do yo u thro w the fish b a c k o r ke e p it?

Case tr ansfer r ed by magistr ate Pla intiff file s Sma ll Cla ims Co mpla int fo r a nd se e ks da ma g e s in the a mo unt o f $12,500. Ma g istra te e nte rs a Co ntinua nc e Orde r, sta ting tha t the a mo unt so ug ht b y Pla intiff e xc e e ds the $10,000 sma ll c la ims thre sho ld a nd

• rde rs tha t the c a se b e tra nsfe rre d to distric t c o urt. T

he c a se is g ive n a CVD numb e r b y the c le rk’ s o ffic e a nd the pa rtie s we re no tic e d fo r he a ring in c ivil distric t c o urt b ut the c le rk’ s o ffic e did no t issue a ne w summo ns to initia te a n a c tio n in the g e ne ra l distric t c o urt divisio n.

Ca n the Distric t Co urt Judg e he a r this c a se ?

a . YE S ~ K e e p the fish! b . NO ~ T hro w it b a c k!

T he re is no sta tuto ry a utho rity fo r a ma g istra te to “tra nsfe r” a c a se to g e ne ra l c ivil distric t c o urt.

4/12/2018 3

Sma ll Cla ims Summo ns

T

• the a b o ve -na me d De fe nda nt: Yo u a re he re b y

summo ne d to a ppe a r b e fo re a Ma g istra te o f the Distric t Co urt, a t 9:00 a m June 23, 2016 to de fe nd a g a inst pro o f o f the c la im sta te d in the c o mpla int file d in this a c tio n. You may file wr itte n answe r making de fe nse to the c laim in the

• ffic e of the Cle r

k of Supe r ior Cour t not late r than the time se t for tr

• ial. If you do not file answe r

, plaintiff must ne ve r the le ss pr

• ve his/ he r

c laim be for e the Magistr ate . But if you fail to appe ar , judgme nt for the r e lie f de mande d in the c omplaint may be r e nde r e d against you. A sma ll c la ims a c tio n is initia te d b y a

Distric t Co urt Summo ns

A Civil Ac tio n Ha s Be e n Co mme nc e d Ag a inst Yo u! Yo u a re no tifie d to a ppe a r a nd a nswe r the c o mpla int o f the pla intiff a s fo llo ws: In T he Ge ne ra l Co urt Of Justic e Distric t Co urt Divisio n…Se r ve a c opy of your wr itte n answe r to the c omplaint upon the plaintiff or plaintiff's attor ne y within thir ty (30) days afte r you have be e n se r ve d. Yo u ma y se rve yo ur a nswe r b y de live ring a c o py to the pla intiff o r b y ma iling it to the pla intiff's la st kno wn a ddre ss, a nd 1. 2. F ile the o rig ina l o f the writte n a nswe r with the Cle rk o f Supe rio r Co urt o f the c o unty na me d a b o ve . If you fail to answe r the c omplaint, the plaintiff will apply to the Cour t for the r e lie f de mande d in the c omplaint. A distric t c o urt a c tio n is initia te d b y a I f a ma g istra te “tra nsfe rs” a c a se to c ivil distric t c o urt, the judg e sho uld (a ) dismiss the c a se fo r la c k o f sub je c t ma tte r jurisdic tio n o r (b ) re turn the c a se to the Cle rk o f Supe rio r Co urt with instruc tio ns tha t the c le rk’ s o ffic e sho uld tre a t the c a se a s “no na ssig ne d”; T hr

• w that fish out!

…Upo n no na ssig nme nt, the c le rk imme dia te ly issue s summo ns in the ma nne r a nd fo rm pro vide d fo r c o mme nc e me nt o f c ivil a c tio ns g e ne ra lly, whe re upo n pro c e ss is se rve d, re turn ma de , a nd ple a ding s a re re q uire d to b e file d in the ma nne r pro vide d fo r c ivil a c tio ns g e ne ra lly….Upo n the jo ining o f the issue , the c le rk pla c e s the a c tio n upo n the c ivil issue do c ke t fo r tria l in the distric t c o urt divisio n. NCGS 7A-215 Pr

• c edur

e upon nonassignment of small c laim ac tion

4/12/2018 4

Motion objec ting to venue T he de fe nda nt in a sma ll c la ims a c tio n ra ise d a n o ra l

• b je c tio n to ve nue a t tria l b e fo re the ma g istra te .

De fe nda nt a rg ue s tha t the re nta l pro pe rty a t issue is lo c a te d in a n a djo ining c o unty a nd the ma tte r sho uld b e he a rd in tha t c o unty. T he ma g istra te suspe nd s the sma ll c la ims a c tio n pe nding a distric t c o urt judg e ’ s ruling o n the mo tio n a nd dire c ts tha t the ma tte r b e pla c e d o n a c ivil distric t c o urt c a le nda r.

Ho w sho uld the distric t c o urt judg e pro c e e d?

a . K e e p the fish a nd he a r the o ra l mo tio n c ha lle ng ing ve nue ; b . T hro w it b a c k a nd re turn the c a se to sma ll c la ims fo r tria l. By mo tio n prio r to filing a nswe r, o r in the a nswe r, the de fe nda nt ma y o b je c t [to ve nue o r pe rso na l jurisdic tio n]. T he se mo tio ns…a re he a rd o n no tic e b y the c hie f distric t judg e o r a [de sig na te d] distric t judg e … Assig nme nt to the ma g istra te is suspe nde d pe nding de te rmina tio n… All the se

• bje c tions ar

e waive d if not made pr ior to the date se t for tr

• ial. I

f ve nue is de te rmine d to b e impro pe r, o r is o rde re d c ha ng e d , the a c tio n is tra nsfe rre d to the distric t c o urt o f the ne w ve nue , a nd is no t the re a fte r a ssig ne d to a ma g istra te , b ut pro c e e ds a s in the c a se o f c ivil a c tio ns g e ne ra lly. NCGS 7A-221 Objec tions to venue and jur isdic tion over per son.

F ishing in Pro te c te d Wa te rs: the L a nd lo rd-T e na nt Re la tio nship in Summa ry E je c tme nt Pro c e e d ing s

FISH AT YOUR OWN RISK

4/12/2018 5

Pla intiff file d a Co mpla int fo r Summa ry E je c tme nt in sma ll c la ims c o urt; the ma g istra te finds tha t the pa rtie s la c k a la ndlo rd te na nt re la tio nship a nd dismisse s the Co mpla int; Pla intiff a ppe a ls to Civil Distric t Co urt.

Upo n a ppe a l fo r tria l d e no vo , the distric t c o urt judg e finds tha t:

Defendant is a squatter who enter ed the pr emises owned by Plaintiff whic h wer e vac ant at the time. Defendant never enter ed into a lease agr eement, or al or wr itten, with the Plaintiff. Plaintiff wants Defendant out of the pr emises; Defendant r efuses to leave.

Hypothetic al #3 c ont’d

• a. Gr

ant Pla intiff’ s Co mpla int fo r Summa ry E je c tme nt;

i.e ., ke e p the fish.

• b. Dismiss Pla intiff’ s Co mpla int fo r

Summa ry E je c tme nt fo r la c k o f sub je c t ma tte r jurisdic tio n; i.e ., thro w it bac k.

Hypothetic al #3 c ont’d

Wha t sho uld the Co urt do ?

A la ndlo rd-te na nt re la tio nship is a n e sse ntia l e le me nt o f a summa ry e je c tme nt a c tio n; the b urde n o f pro o f is o n la ndlo rd to e sta b lish the e xiste nc e o f suc h a re la tio nship in

• rde r to a va il itse lf o f the spe c ia lize d pro c e dure a nd

re me dy e sta b lishe d b y NCGS 42-26.

S e e , e .g., Cre dle v Gib b s, 65 N.C. 192 (1871); Mc Co mb s v Wa lla c e , 66 N.C. 482 (1872); Hug he s v Ma so n, 84 N.C. 472, 474 (1881);

4/12/2018 6

I n a ppe a l fo r tria l de no vo fro m sma ll c la ims judg me nt in summa ry e je c tme nt a c tio n, the distric t c o urt sho uld de te rmine whe the r a la ndlo rd-te na nt re la tio nship e xists b e twe e n the pa rtie s r e gar dle ss of whe the r e ithe r side r aise s the issue ; if suc h a re la tio nship is no t e sta b lishe d, the distric t c o urt sho uld dismiss the c a se fo r la c k o f sub je c t ma tte r jurisdic tio n.

S e e , e .g. Ha ye s v T urne r, 98 N.C.Ap p. 451, 454, 391 S.E .2d 513, 515 (1990);

Whe re the e vide nc e fa ils to e sta b lish the e xiste nc e o f a la ndlo rd-te na nt re la tio nship , the n the distric t c o urt judg e -- whe the r he a ring a summa ry e je c tme nt a c tio n o n a ppe a l

• r he a ring the a c tio n a s a n initia l ma tte r b e c a use it wa s

file d in distric t c o urt -- sha ll dismiss the c la im fo r summa ry e je c tme nt fo r la c k o f sub je c t ma tte r jurisdic tio n. T hr

• w that fish out!

No t yo ur usua l fishing ho le ?

Ho w sta rting o ff in Sma ll Cla ims c ha ng e s wha t ha ppe ns in Distric t Co urt.

Pla intiff a ppe a ls fro m a sma ll c la ims judg me nt de nying summa ry e je c tme nt. T he pa rtie s a ppe a r in distric t c o urt fo r tria l de no vo a nd pla intiff a sks the judg e to g ra nt he r pro pe rly file d mo tio n fo r de fa ult judg me nt b a se d o n de fe nda nt’ s fa ilure to file a writte n a nswe r. Yo u sho uld

a . Allo w pla intiff’ s mo tio n. b . De ny pla intiff’ s mo tio n, a nd pro c e e d to tria l.

4/12/2018 7

At a ny time prio r to time se t fo r tria l, the de fe nda nt may file a writte n a nswe r a dmitting o r de nying a ll o r a ny o f the a lle g a tio ns in the c o mpla int o r ple a ding ne w ma tte r in a vo ida nc e ...F a ilure o f de fe nda nt to file a writte n a nswe r a fte r b e ing sub je c te d to the jurisdic tio n o f the c o urt o ve r his pe rso n c o nstitute s a g e ne ra l de nia l. (ita lic s a dde d ) NCGS 7A-218 Answer

• f defendant

“T he distric t judg e b e fo re who m the [a ppe a l] is trie d ma y

• rde r re ple a ding o r furthe r ple a ding b y so me o r a ll o f the

pa rtie s; ma y try the a c tio n o n stipula tio n a s to the issue ; o r ma y try it o n the ple a ding s a s file d.” NCGS 7A-229. De fe nda nt a ppe a ls fro m a judg me nt in fa vo r o f pla intiff in a summa ry e je c tme nt a c tio n. Ha ving file d no a nswe r o r c o unte rc la im, de fe nda nt te stifie s during tria l de no vo tha t a ny re nt he a lle g e dly o we s sho uld b e o ffse t b y the po o r c o nditio n o f the re nta l pro pe rty tha t he is le a sing . Pla intiff o b je c ts to this e vide nc e , a rg uing tha t de fe nda nt wa ive d the de fe nse o f o ffse t b y fa iling to file a n a nswe r. De fe nda nt re spo nd s tha t he did no t think he ne e de d to file a n a nswe r, like the summo ns sa id, so he we nt o ut fishing .

Hypothetic al #5 c ont’d

4/12/2018 8

Sho uld the judg e c o nside r de fe nda nt’ s e vide nc e a s o n o ffse t to the re nt a lle g e dly o we d a t the time o f b re a c h?

a . Ye s b . No

Hypothetic al #5 c ont’d

Whe re no de fe nse s a re re q uire d to b e ple d in sma ll c la ims c o urt, a nd whe re a distric t c o urt judg e c a n try the c a se o n the ple a ding s a s file d in the sma ll c la ims a c tio n, the n te na nts do no t wa ive de fe nse s b y fa iling to ple a d the m a nd c a n ra ise suc h de fe nse s o ra lly during tria l. S e e , Do n Se tliff & Asso c ia te s, I nc . v Sub wa y Re a l E sta te Co rp., 178 N.C. App. 385, 387, 631 S.E .2d 526, 528 (2006), a ff’ d, 361 N.C. 586, 650 S.E .2d 593 (2007), ho lding tha t te na nt did no t ha ve to file a n a nswe r in sma ll c la ims c o urt to pre se rve the a ffirma tive de fe nse o f e sto ppe l fo r the de no vo tria l in distric t c o urt, a nd the distric t c o urt did no t e rr in c o nside ring the e sto ppe l de fe nse . De fe nda nt did no t file a n Answe r in the sma ll c la ims summa ry e je c tme nt a c tio n. Upo n a ppe a l fo r tria l de no vo , de fe nda nt file s a n Answe r a nd Co unte rc la ims fo r b re a c h o f the NC Re side ntia l Re nta l Ag re e me nts Ac t a nd Unfa ir a nd De c e ptive T ra de Pra c tic e s, re q ue sting $20,000 in tre b le da ma g e s a nd a tto rne y fe e s. I f De fe nda nt’ s c o unte rc la ims ha ve b e e n pro pe rly se rve d a nd ne ithe r pa rty re q ue sts a c o ntinua nc e , do yo u pro c e e d to tria l o n Pla intiff’ s Co mplia nt a nd De fe nda nt’ s c o unte rc la ims? a . Ye s b . No

4/12/2018 9

“On a ppe a l fro m the judg me nt o f the ma g istra te fo r tria l de no vo b e fo re a distric t judg e , the judg e sha ll a llo w a ppro pria te c o unte rc la ims, c ro ss c la ims, third pa rty c la ims, re plie s a nd a nswe rs to c ro ss c la ims…” NCGS 7A-220.

Po st tria l mo tio ns in sma ll c la ims c a se s

Sc a ling the fish

L a ndlo rd file s Co mpla int fo r Summa ry E je c tme nt a g a inst T e na nt, a lle g ing $650 in re nt a rre a rs. L a ndlo rd a nd te na nt

• ra lly a g re e if te na nt pa ys the a rre a rs plus c o urt c o sts prio r

to tria l, the n te na nt ne e d no t a ppe a r b e fo re the ma g istra te b e c a use la ndlo rd will dismiss the a c tio n. T e na nt pa ys la ndlo rd the a g re e d upo n a mo unt, le a ve s to wn to c a re fo r he r a iling mo the r a nd do e s no t a ppe a r fo r tria l. L a ndlo rd ne ve rthe le ss a ppe a rs b e fo re the ma g istra te a nd mo ve s fo r summa ry e je c tme nt, fa lse ly a lle g ing tha t T e na nt is still $650 in a rre a rs. Ma g istra te e nte rs judg me nt o f po sse ssio n in fa vo r o f la ndlo rd.

Hypothetic al #7 c ont’d

4/12/2018 10

Whe n T e na nt re turns to the pre mise s, she finds the Judg me nt a nd No tic e tha t the Writ o f Po sse ssio n will b e e xe c ute d in thre e da ys. T e na nt file s a Mo tio n a lle g ing tha t the ma g istra te ’ s judg me nt sho uld b e se t a side o n the b a sis tha t la ndlo rd pro c ure d te na nt’ s a b se nc e fro m tria l b y fra ud a nd pre se nte d fra udule nt e vide nc e tha t te na nt

• we d a re nt a rre a ra g e ; o n the b a sis o f c o mmo n la w

wa ive r a nd/ o r a ny o the r re a so n justifying re lie f unde r Rule 60(b )(3), (5) & (6).

Hypothetic al #7 c ont’d

Whic h judic ia l o ffic e r is a utho rize d to he a r this Rule 60(b )(3),(5)&(6) mo tio n?

a . T he ma g istra te , if the Chie f Distric t Co urt Judg e ha s de le g a te d a utho rity to he a r suc h mo tio ns; b . A distric t c o urt judg e ; c . Bo th a & b .

Hypothetic al #7 c ont’d

a ) T he c hie f distric t c o urt judg e ma y a utho rize ma g istra te s to he a r mo tio ns to se t a side a n o rde r o r judg me nt pursua nt to G.S. 1A-1, Rule 60(b )(1) a nd o rde r a ne w tria l b e fo re a ma g istra te . [T his] e xe rc ise o f a utho rity…sha ll no t b e c o nstrue d to limit the a utho rity o f the distric t c o urt to he a r mo tio ns pursua nt to Rule 60(b )(1) thro ug h (6) o f the Rule s o f Civil Pro c e dure fo r re lie f fro m a judg me nt o r o rde r e nte re d b y a ma g istra te a nd, if g ra nte d, to o rde r a ne w tria l b e fo re a ma g istra te … NCGS sec tion 7A-228 New tr ial befor e magistr ate… A te na nt who a lle g e s c o g niza b le g ro unds to se t a side a ma g istra te ’ s judg me nt pursua nt to Rule 60(b )(1)-(6) ma y a lso se e k a T RO & a Pre limina ry I njunc tio n to sta y e xe c utio n

• f the writ o f po sse ssio n pursua nt to NC Rule o f Civil

Pro c e dure Rule 65. T he se mo tio ns a re pro pe rly he a rd b y a distric t c o urt judg e . T R Os/ Pr eliminar y Injunc tions stemming fr

• m R

ule 60(b) motions to set aside and R ule 65

4/12/2018 11

 A te mpo ra ry re stra ining o rde r ma y b e g ra nte d witho ut no tic e if it c le a rly a ppe a rs fro m spe c ific fa c ts sho wn b y a ffida vit o r b y ve rifie d c o mpla int tha t imme dia te a nd irre pa ra b le injury, lo ss o r da ma g e will re sult to the a pplic a nt b e fo re the a dve rse pa rty…c a n b e he a rd in

• ppo sitio n…

 Judg e sha ll se t a se c urity b o nd; in summa ry e je c tme nt c a se s, the b o nd is usua lly the a mo unt o f pro -ra te d re nt fo r the 10-da y pe rio d tha t the T RO is in e ffe c t prio r to the he a ring o n the pre limina ry injunc tio n whe re b o th side s a re pre se nt.

NC R ule of Civil Pr

• c edur

e 65

T he mo re I kno w abo ut fishing, the mo re I re alize ho w muc h I ne e d to le arn abo ut fishing!

Whe n fishing is o ve r a nd the da y is do ne , re tre a t fro m the murky wa te rs until the rising sun.