Title: Poole v. UNC-CH

State: north-carolina

Issuer: North Carolina Supreme Court

Document:

NO. COA13-1471 
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS 
Filed: 17 June 2014 
 
 
WALLACE SCOTT KIKER, 
     Plaintiff, 
   
 
 
 
v. 
 
Harnett County 
No. 13 CVS 162 
CEDRIC JELANI WINFIELD, 
     Defendant. 
 
 
 
 
Appeal by defendant from order entered 18 November 2013 by 
Judge James M. Webb in Harnett County Superior Court.  Heard in 
the Court of Appeals 22 April 2014. 
 
Bain, Buzzard & McRae, LLP, by Robert A. Buzzard, for 
plaintiff-appellee. 
 
Robert E. Ruegger for defendant-appellant. 
 
 
STEELMAN, Judge. 
 
 
Where there was no evidence in the record that plaintiff 
was a resident of Harnett County at the time of the filing of 
this action, the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion 
for change of venue. 
I. Factual and Procedural Background 
On 29 March 2010, Wallace Scott Kiker (plaintiff) was a 
passenger in a motor vehicle operated by Cedric Jelani Winfield 
(defendant) in Union County, North Carolina.  According to 
-2- 
 
 
plaintiff’s complaint, defendant was negligent in causing a 
single vehicle collision, which resulted in personal injury to 
plaintiff.  On 31 January 2013, plaintiff filed this action, 
seeking monetary damages and attorney’s fees.  On 12 August 
2013, defendant filed an answer and motion for change of venue 
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil 
Procedure, and N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 1-82 and 1-83.  Defendant 
contended that he was a citizen of Union County, and that 
plaintiff was incarcerated in a prison located in Spruce Pine.  
Defendant asserted that since neither party resided in Harnett 
County, that venue in Harnett County was improper, and that the 
case had to be transferred from Harnett County.  Defendant also 
moved that the case be transferred from the district court 
division to the superior court division, based upon plaintiff’s 
prayer for monetary relief. 
Plaintiff served verified responses to defendant’s First 
Set of Interrogatories.  Plaintiff was asked to list his present 
address, along with each address where he had lived for the last 
five years.  Four of the five addresses listed were in Monroe, 
in 
Union 
County, 
and 
the 
fifth 
was 
the 
Mountain 
View 
Correctional Institution in Spruce Pine.  None of these 
addresses were in Harnett County. 
-3- 
 
 
On 18 November 2013, the trial court granted defendant’s 
motion to transfer this action from district court to superior 
court.  The trial court denied, without prejudice, defendant’s 
motion for a change of venue from Harnett County. 
From the order denying his motion for change of venue, 
defendant appeals. 
II. Standard of Review 
“The general rule in North Carolina, as elsewhere, is that 
where a demand for removal for improper venue is timely and 
proper, the trial court has no discretion as to removal. The 
provision in N.C.G.S. § 1-83 that the court ‘may change’ the 
place of trial when the county designated is not the proper one 
has been interpreted to mean ‘must change.’” Miller v. Miller, 
38 N.C. App. 95, 97, 247 S.E.2d 278, 279 (1978) (citations 
omitted). 
III. Analysis 
Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying 
his motion for change of venue.  We agree. 
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-82 provides that, in cases such as 
this: 
the action must be tried in the county in 
which the plaintiffs or the defendants, or 
any of them, reside at its commencement, or 
if none of the defendants reside in the 
-4- 
 
 
State, then in the county in which the 
plaintiffs, or any of them, reside; and if 
none of the parties reside in the State, 
then the action may be tried in any county 
which 
the 
plaintiff 
designates 
in 
the 
plaintiff's summons and complaint, subject 
to the power of the court to change the 
place of trial, in the cases provided by 
statute[.] 
 
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-82 (2013).  N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-83 further 
clarifies that, upon the timely motion of defendant, the trial 
court may transfer venue where it is improper.  See N.C. Gen. 
Stat. § 1-83 (2013).  We have held that this change of venue is 
not discretionary, but rather is mandatory.  Miller, 38 N.C. 
App. at 97, 247 S.E.2d at 279.  Where venue is improper, the 
trial court must grant a motion for change of venue.1 
In the instant case, the only evidence in the record that 
would suggest that either party was a resident of Harnett County 
was plaintiff’s allegation in his complaint that he was a 
citizen and resident of Harnett County.  The complaint in this 
action was not verified.  We have previously held that “[a]n 
unverified complaint is not an affidavit or other evidence.”  
                     
1 We distinguish this motion for change of venue, based upon the 
residency of the parties, from a discretionary motion for change 
of venue, based upon the convenience of the witnesses.  We have 
held that the latter form of the motion for change of venue is 
subject to the trial court’s discretion, and reviewable only for 
an abuse of discretion.  See Phillips v. Currie Mills, Inc., 24 
N.C. App. 143, 144, 209 S.E.2d 886, 886 (1974). 
-5- 
 
 
Hill v. Hill, 11 N.C. App. 1, 10, 180 S.E.2d 424, 430 (1971).  
The fact that plaintiff’s complaint was signed by counsel does 
not render it a verified complaint.  There is therefore no 
evidence in the record that plaintiff was a resident of Harnett 
County at the commencement of the underlying lawsuit. 
Further, 
in 
his 
verified 
answers 
to 
defendant’s 
interrogatories, plaintiff stated the following: 
1. 
State the date and place of your birth, 
your present address, the length of time you 
have lived there, and each address you have 
used for the last five (5) years. 
 
ANSWER: 
August 4, 1970 
Monroe, Union County, North Carolina 
Mountain View Correctional Institution, 
Spruce Pine, NC 
1814 John Moore Road, Monroe, NC; 
1813 Timberlane Drive, Monroe, NC; 
2512 Doster Road, Monroe, NC 
 
Plaintiff’s verified responses do not assert that at any 
time in the past five years (which covers the period of time 
going back to the accident) did plaintiff reside in Harnett 
County. 
We hold that, in the absence of any evidence that plaintiff 
resided in Harnett County, the trial court erred in denying 
defendant’s motion for change of venue.  We vacate the trial 
court’s order denying the motion, and remand with instructions 
for the trial court to transfer this action to Union County. 
-6- 
 
 
VACATED AND REMANDED. 
Judge HUNTER, Robert C., concurs.  
Judge 
BRYANT 
dissents 
in 
separate 
opinion.
 
NO. COA13-1471 
 
 
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS 
 
 
Filed:  17 June 2014 
 
WALLACE SCOTT KIKER, 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
Harnett County  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
No. 13 CVS 162 
CEDRIC JELANI WINFIELD, 
 
Defendant. 
 
 
BRYANT, Judge, dissenting. 
 
The majority vacates the trial court’s order denying 
defendant’s motion for change of venue and remands with 
instructions for the trial court to transfer this action to 
Union County.  Because I believe the trial court did not abuse 
its 
discretion 
in 
denying 
defendant’s 
motion, 
I 
must 
respectfully dissent. 
North Carolina General Statutes, section 1-82, holds that 
where an action is not based upon real property, “the action 
must be tried in the county in which the plaintiff[] . . . 
reside[s] at its commencement . . . .”  N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-82 
(2013).  A motion for change of venue must be granted where it 
is clear that the action has been brought in the wrong county.  
Nello L. Teer Co. v. Hitchcock Corp., 235 N.C. 741, 743, 71 
S.E.2d 54, 55—56 (1952).  Where venue is appropriate under 
-2- 
 
 
 
N.C.G.S. § 1-82, a trial court’s decision as to whether to 
permit a non-mandatory transfer is reviewed for abuse of 
discretion.  Centura Bank v. Miller, 138 N.C. App. 679, 683—84, 
532 S.E.2d 246, 249—50 (2000). 
The majority contends the trial court erred in denying 
defendant’s motion because plaintiff failed to provide evidence 
of his residency for venue purposes.  Specifically, defendant 
contends, and the majority agrees, that plaintiff failed to 
provide evidence that plaintiff resided in Harnett County at the 
time of filing his complaint.  I respectfully disagree.   
The majority reasons that based on Hill v. Hill, 11 N.C. 
App. 1, 10, 180 S.E.2d 424, 430 (1971) (noting that “[a]n 
unverified complaint is not an affidavit or other evidence”), 
there is no evidence in the record that plaintiff resided in 
Harnett County.  The majority fails to recognize that the 
complaint was signed by plaintiff’s Harnett County attorney.  
The first allegation in the complaint is: “1. That Plaintiff is 
a citizen and resident of Harnett County.”  Pursuant to Rule 11 
of our Rules of Civil Procedure, “[t]he signature of an attorney 
or party constitutes a certificate by him that he has read the 
pleading, motion, or other paper; that to the best of his 
knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable 
-3- 
 
 
 
inquiry it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing 
law[.]”  N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 11(a) (2013).  Further, 
plaintiff’s attorney signed the affidavit of service indicating 
his representation of plaintiff and that service of summons and 
complaint had been completed upon defendant. Although the 
majority is technically correct in describing plaintiff’s 
complaint as “unverified,” the fact remains that plaintiff’s 
counsel 
signed 
the 
complaint 
indicating 
that 
plaintiff’s 
attorney believed plaintiff was a resident of Harnett County at 
the time the complaint was filed and filed an affidavit of 
service as to the complaint.  Therefore, the record contains 
some evidence that was before the trial court as to plaintiff’s 
residency at the commencement of the action.2 
In its order denying defendant’s motion for change of 
venue, the trial court made no findings of fact, noting only 
that: “The Court having reviewed the Defendant’s motion, 
applicable law and after hearing arguments of counsel, HEREBY 
ORDERS that Defendant’s motion is denied, without prejudice.”  
                     
2 Defendant points to an interrogatory in which plaintiff lists 
four Union County addresses, and a present location at the 
Mountain View Correctional Institution in Spruce Pine, as proof 
that venue in Harnett County is inappropriate.  However, 
plaintiff answered defendant’s interrogatory on 29 October 2013, 
almost ten months after plaintiff filed his complaint.   
 
-4- 
 
 
 
The record does not contain a transcript of the hearing before 
the trial court.  Without a transcript of the hearing, we cannot 
know what transpired during that hearing and it would be 
inappropriate to speculate as to the factors that led to the 
decision of the trial court.   
It is well-established that “an appellate court accords 
great deference to the trial court . . . because it is entrusted 
with the duty to hear testimony, weigh and resolve any conflicts 
in the evidence, find the facts, and, then based upon those 
findings, render a legal decision[.]”  State v. Cooke, 306 N.C. 
132, 134, 291 S.E.2d 618, 619—20 (2011).  Further, a trial 
court’s decision on whether to permit transfer of venue is 
reviewed for abuse of discretion where it appears that venue is 
appropriate.  Centura Bank, 138 N.C. App. at 683—84, 532 S.E.2d 
at 249—50.   
As such, based on the record we do have before this Court, 
where there does exist evidence of plaintiff’s residency in 
Harnett County, I cannot hold that the trial court abused its 
discretion and erred in denying defendant’s motion for change of 
venue.  For the reasons stated herein, I would affirm the order 
of the trial court. 
  
-5-