IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA

2022-NCCOA-28

No. COA21-333

Filed 18 January 2022

Haywood County, No. 19 CVS 486

JOHN L. DAVIS, Plaintiff,

v.

LAKE JUNALUSKA ASSEMBLY, INC., Defendant.

Appeal by plaintiff from order entered 10 February 2021 by Judge Bradley B. 

Letts in Haywood County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 14 

December 2021.

John L. Davis pro se.

McGuire, Wood & Bissette, PA, by Matthew S. Roberson, for defendant-appellee.

TYSON, Judge.

¶ 1 John L. Davis (“Plaintiff”) appeals from orders entered granting summary 

judgment in favor of Lake Junaluska Assembly, Inc. (“Defendant”). We affirm.

I. Background 

¶ 2 Plaintiff is the owner of real property located in the Lake Junaluska Assembly 

Conference and Retreat (“Retreat”). Defendant is a non-profit, non-stock company, 

which manages, owns, develops, and sells real property in the Retreat. The Retreat

contains more than 700 private residences. The Retreat also contains a lake, meeting 
DAVIS V. LAKE JUNALUSKA ASSEMBLY, INC.

2022-NCCOA-28

Opinion of the Court

facilities, event auditoriums, a campground, rental accommodations, and outdoor 

recreation facilities. The Retreat is used for meetings, events, religious conferences,

and retreats. 

¶ 3 In 1913, Defendant’s predecessor-in-interest began selling lots for private 

residential use. The Retreat “was established for the benefit of the United Methodist 

Church” as “a resort for religious, charitable, educational and benevolent purposes[.]” 

In the declaration of the protective covenants, conditions, restrictions and easements,

Defendant states the Retreat “is dedicated to the training, edification and inspiration 

of people who are interested in and concerned with Christian principles and 

concepts.” 

¶ 4 Plaintiff purchased his lot within the Retreat in 2011. Plaintiff’s property was 

first conveyed in 1950 to Plaintiff’s predecessor-in-interest, Eugene L. de Casteline. 

The following covenants are contained within Plaintiff’s chain of title: 

Second: That said lands shall be held, owned and occupied 

subject to the provisions of the charter of the Lake 

Junaluska Assembly, Inc. and all amendments thereto, 

heretofore, or hereafter enacted, and to the bylaws and 

regulations, ordinances and community rules which have 

been or hereafter may be, from time to time, adopted by 

said Lake Junaluska Assembly, Inc., and its successors. 

. . . . 

Fifth: That it is expressly stipulated and covenanted 

between said party of the first part and that said party of 

the second part his heirs and assigns, that the bylaws, 
DAVIS V. LAKE JUNALUSKA ASSEMBLY, INC.

2022-NCCOA-28

Opinion of the Court

regulations, community rules and ordinances heretofore or 

hereafter adopted by the said Lake Junaluska Assembly, 

Inc. shall be binding upon all owners and occupants of said 

lands as full and to the same extent as if the same were 

fully set forth in this Deed, and all owners and occupants 

of said lands shall be bound thereby. 

¶ 5 Plaintiff filed an action alleging: (1) the Retreat is a planned community 

pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 47F (2021); (2) Defendant made expenditures from 

assessments collected for purposes not stated in the Retreat’s Rules; (3) an 

amendment in the Retreat’s Rules conflicted with established case law; (4) Defendant 

improperly adopted Amendments to the Rules for the Retreat; and, (5) the lien 

practices of Defendant in the Retreat are not authorized by law. 

¶ 6 The trial court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on 5 August 

2020 holding the Planned Community Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 47F, does not apply to 

Defendant. Plaintiff filed a motion seeking Defendant to release detailed financial 

records on the collection and expenditures of assessments within the Retreat. 

Following a hearing, the trial court allowed in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s

disclosure motion. Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration pursuant to North 

Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 59, which was denied following a hearing by order 

on 10 February 2021. 

¶ 7 Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on all remaining issues on 21 

January 2021, which the trial court allowed on 10 February 2021. Plaintiff appealed. 
DAVIS V. LAKE JUNALUSKA ASSEMBLY, INC.

2022-NCCOA-28

Opinion of the Court

II. Jurisdiction 

¶ 8 Jurisdiction in this Court lies pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27(b)(1) (2021). 

III. Issue

¶ 9 Plaintiff argues the trial court erred when it granted summary judgment in 

favor of Defendant. 

IV. Analysis

A. Standard of Review 

¶ 10 North Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) allows a moving party to obtain 

summary judgment upon demonstrating “the pleadings, depositions, answers to 

interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits” show they are 

“entitled to a judgment as a matter of law” and “there is no genuine issue as to any 

material fact.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c) (2021). 

¶ 11 A material fact is one supported by evidence that would “persuade a reasonable 

mind to accept a conclusion.” Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Pennington, 356 N.C. 571, 579, 

573 S.E.2d 118, 124 (2002) (citation omitted). “An issue is material if the facts alleged 

would . . . affect the result of the action.” Koontz v. City of Winston-Salem, 280 N.C. 

513, 518, 186 S.E.2d 897, 901 (1972). 

¶ 12 Our Court has held: 

A defendant may show entitlement to summary judgment 

by (1) proving that an essential element of the plaintiff’s 

case is non-existent, or (2) showing through discovery that 

the plaintiff cannot produce evidence to support an 
DAVIS V. LAKE JUNALUSKA ASSEMBLY, INC.

2022-NCCOA-28

Opinion of the Court

essential element of his or her claim, or (3) showing that 

the plaintiff cannot surmount an affirmative defense.

Draughon v. Harnett Cty. Bd. of Educ., 158 N.C. App. 208, 212, 580 S.E.2d 732, 735

(2003), aff’d per curiam, 358 N.C. 131, 591 S.E.2d 521 (2004) (citation and internal 

quotation marks omitted). 

¶ 13 When reviewing the allegations and proffers at summary judgment, “[a]ll 

inferences of fact from the proofs offered at the hearing must be drawn against the 

movant and in favor of the party opposing the motion.” Boudreau v. Baughman, 322 

N.C. 331, 343, 368 S.E.2d 849, 858 (1988) (citation omitted). Summary judgment is 

not appropriate where matters of credibility and determining the weight of the 

evidence exist. Moore v. Fieldcrest Mills, Inc., 296 N.C. 467, 470, 251 S.E.2d 419, 422 

(1979). 

¶ 14 “[O]nce the party seeking summary judgment makes the required showing, the 

burden shifts to the nonmoving party to produce a forecast of evidence demonstrating 

specific facts, as opposed to allegations, showing that he can at least establish a prima 

facie case at trial.” Pacheco v. Rogers and Breece, Inc., 157 N.C. 448, 445, 579 S.E.2d 

505, 507 (2003) (citation omitted). 

¶ 15 On appeal, “[t]he standard of review for summary judgment is de novo.” Forbis 

v. Neal, 361 N.C. 519, 524, 649 S.E.2d 382, 385 (2007) (citation omitted). 

B. 5 August 2020 Order 
DAVIS V. LAKE JUNALUSKA ASSEMBLY, INC.

2022-NCCOA-28

Opinion of the Court

¶ 16 The North Carolina Planned Community Act was enacted in 1999 and “applies 

to all planned communities created within this State on or after January 1, 1999.” 

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 47F-1-102(a) (2021). Certain provisions of the Planned Community 

Act apply to planned communities created prior to 1999, “unless the articles of 

incorporation or the declaration expressly provides to the contrary.” N.C. Gen. Stat. 

§ 47F-1-102(c) (2021). 

¶ 17 N.C. Gen. Stat. § 47F-1-102(c) enumerates sections of the Planned Community 

Act that apply to planned communities created prior to 1999, but “only with respect 

to events and circumstances occurring on or after January 1, 1999, and do not 

invalidate existing provisions of the declaration, bylaws, or plats and plans of those 

planned communities.” Id. (emphasis supplied). 

¶ 18 Our Supreme Court examined the bylaws of the Retreat in Southeastern 

Jurisdictional Admin. Council, Inc. v. Emerson, 363 N.C. 590, 599-600, 683 S.E.2d 

366, 372 (2009). The Court reviewed whether an amendment, which imposed an 

annual service charge “in an amount fixed by the SEJ Administrative Council for 

garbage and trash collection, police protection, street maintenance, street lighting, 

drainage maintenance, administrative costs and upkeep of the common areas,” was

reasonable. Nowhere in Southeastern Jurisdictional does the majority’s opinion 

address the applicability of the Planned Community Act to the Retreat nor does it 

cite N.C. Gen. Stat. § 47F. 
DAVIS V. LAKE JUNALUSKA ASSEMBLY, INC.

2022-NCCOA-28

Opinion of the Court

¶ 19 Plaintiff argues the trial court erred by holding “Southeastern Jurisdictional 

Admin. Council v. Emerson, 363 N.C. 590, 683 S.E.2d 366 (2009) is controlling for 

this case.” Plaintiff asserts this conclusion of law constitutes reversible error. 

Contrary to Plaintiff’s argument and presuming error, this ruling is not per se

reversible error. Even if the trial court cited an incorrect basis for the judgment, this 

Court “will not disturb a judgment where the correct result has been reached.” 

Atlantic Coast Mech., Inc. v. Arcadis, Geraghty & Miller of N.C., Inc., 175 N.C. App. 

339, 344, 623 S.E.2d 334, 338 (2006). Defendant, as appellee, is “free to argue on 

appeal any ground to support the trial court’s grant of summary judgment regardless 

of the fact the trial court specified the grounds for its summary judgment decision.” 

Id. at 344, 623 S.E.2d at 339 (citations omitted). 

¶ 20 Our Court has held: 

The purpose of the entry of findings of fact by a trial court 

is to resolve contested issues of fact. This is not appropriate 

when granting a motion for summary judgment, where the 

basis of the judgment is that there is no genuine issue as 

to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a 

judgment as a matter of law.

War Eagle, Inc. v. Belair, 204 N.C. App. 548, 551-52, 694 S.E.2d 497, 500 (2010) 

(citations and quotation marks omitted). Summary judgment orders should not 

include contested findings of fact. “[A]ny findings should clearly be denominated as 

‘uncontested facts’ and not as a resolution of contested facts.” Id. 
DAVIS V. LAKE JUNALUSKA ASSEMBLY, INC.

2022-NCCOA-28

Opinion of the Court

¶ 21 Plaintiff has not asserted any “events or circumstances” occurring after 1 

January 1999 to invoke the retroactive provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 47F-1-102(c). 

Plaintiff purchased the property with prior record notice of the covenants recorded 

within the chain of title. Plaintiff’s argument is overruled. 

C. 10 February 2021 Order on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration

¶ 22 The trial court denied Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in part and 

granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in part by ordering Defendant to 

“make available to property owners in the Lake Junaluska Retreat, an annual profit 

and loss statement, a balance sheet, capital budget, and annual audit (if one is 

prepared)” for each year beginning with 2020. 

¶ 23 “The labels ‘findings of fact’ and ‘conclusions of law’ employed by the trial court 

in a written order do not determine the nature of our review.” Westmoreland v. High 

Point Healthcare, Inc., 218 N.C. App. 76, 79, 721 S.E.2d 712, 716 (2012). Our Court 

has held: 

The classification of a determination as either a finding 

of fact or a conclusion of law is admittedly difficult. As a 

general rule, however, any determination requiring the 

exercise of judgment, or the application of legal principles, 

is more properly classified as a conclusion of law. Any 

determination reached through logical reasoning from the 

evidentiary facts is more properly classified a finding 

of fact.

In re Helms, 127 N.C. App. 505, 510, 491 S.E.2d 672, 675 (1997) (citations and 
DAVIS V. LAKE JUNALUSKA ASSEMBLY, INC.

2022-NCCOA-28

Opinion of the Court

quotation marks omitted). 

¶ 24 The trial court stated “the following non-controverted facts:” 

1. This Court, following a hearing on July 27, 2020 on crossmotions for summary judgment by Plaintiff and Defendant, 

ruled that that (sic) the North Carolina Planned 

Community Act (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 47F-1-101 et. seq) does 

not apply to Defendant or the Lake Junaluska 

Development; 

2. Defendant and the Lake Junaluska development is a 

unique community; 

3. The North Carolina Supreme Court’s opinion and ruling 

in Southeastern Jurisdictional Admin. Council v. Emerson, 

363 N.C. 590, 683 S.E.2d 366 (2009) does not address the 

issue concerning the disclosure of financial records of 

Defendant; and 

4. Because the North Carolina Planned Community [Act] 

does not apply to the Defendant or the Lake Junaluska

development, and given the unique character and longstanding history of covenant-imposed regulations, there is 

a gray area and ambiguity concerning the disclosure of 

financial records by Defendant and the entitlement of 

Plaintiff and other similarly situated property owners in 

the Lake Junaluska development who pay service charges 

imposed by Defendant to view financial records of 

Defendant.

¶ 25 Plaintiff argues these findings of fact are controverted. Number one is a 

recitation of the trial court’s 5 August 2020 order. Number two does not have any 

legal significance. Numbers three and four involve the “application of legal 

principles” and are conclusions of law and not controverted or “non-controverted 

facts.” Id. 
DAVIS V. LAKE JUNALUSKA ASSEMBLY, INC.

2022-NCCOA-28

Opinion of the Court

¶ 26 Plaintiff argues the trial court erred in holding “The North Carolina Supreme 

Court’s opinion and ruling in Southeastern Jurisdictional Admin. Council v. 

Emerson, 363 N.C. 590, 683 S.E.2d 366 (2009) does not address the issue concerning 

the disclosure of financial records of Defendant[.]” Our Supreme Court’s holding in 

Southeastern Jurisdictional, only addresses the validity of service charges imposed 

on lot owners within the Retreat and not Defendant’s disclosure responsibilities or 

lot owners’ rights to disclosure of records. Southeastern Jurisdictional Admin. 

Council Inc., 363 N.C. at 601, 683 S.E.2d at 373. Plaintiff’s argument is overruled. 

¶ 27 Plaintiff further argues the trial court erred in its holding of finding of fact 

four. As is held above, the Retreat is not subject to the Planned Community Act. 

Plaintiff is not entitled to disclosures pursuant to the Planned Community Act. 

Plaintiff’s argument is overruled. 

¶ 28 Plaintiff argues the trial court erred by denying him discovery of records and 

legers pursuant to Rule 26 of our Rules of Civil Procedure by denying his motion for 

summary judgment. See N.C. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 26 (2021). Plaintiff sought the 

release of information pursuant to the Planned Community Act, which the trial court 

properly held was inapplicable to the Retreat. Plaintiff filed a motion for summary 

judgment, not a motion to compel Defendant’s production of documents. The record 

on appeal does not contain any motion for discovery pursuant to Rule 26 of our Rules 

of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff’s argument is overruled. 
DAVIS V. LAKE JUNALUSKA ASSEMBLY, INC.

2022-NCCOA-28

Opinion of the Court

D. 10 February 2021 Order on Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion

¶ 29 The trial court granted summary judgment to Defendant on all remaining 

claims by order entered 10 February 2021. As is held above, the Retreat is not subject 

to the Planned Community Act. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 47F-1-102(c). Defendant is not 

subject to the Planned Community Act’s disclosure requirements. Id.

¶ 30 Plaintiff argues summary judgment was improper because witness testimony 

is required to sort through conflicts of information to establish material facts. 

Plaintiff failed to present a forecast of evidence to the trial court to show any genuine 

factual dispute exists. See Pacheco, 157 N.C. at 448, 579 S.E.2d at 507. Plaintiff’s 

argument is overruled. 

V. Conclusion 

¶ 31 The trial court properly granted summary judgment for Defendant on all 

remaining claims by order entered 10 February 2021. The trial court did not err in 

denying Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in part. Plaintiff’s forecast of 

evidence does not establish a genuine issue of material fact exists. The trial court’s 

order is affirmed. It is so ordered. 

AFFIRMED. 

Judges CARPENTER and GORE concur.