An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute 

controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in 

accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of 

A p p e l l a t e P r o c e d ure.

NO. COA13-850

NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS

Filed: 4 February 2014

GLORIA T. HAIRSTON,

Plaintiff,

v. Forsyth County

No. 11 CVS 851

JOHN W. COLLINS, JR.,

Defendant.

Appeal by plaintiff from judgment entered 12 April 2013 by 

Judge William Z. Wood, Jr. in Forsyth County Superior Court. 

Heard in the Court of Appeals 6 January 2014.

Gloria T. Hairston, pro se, for plaintiff–appellant.

J.E. Thornton, P.A., by Jack E. Thornton, Jr. and J. Alex 

Thornton, for defendant–appellee.

MARTIN, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff Gloria T. Hairston appeals from a judgment 

denying any recovery against defendant John W. Collins, Jr. and 

taxing her with the costs. We affirm.

In February 2011, plaintiff filed a complaint against 

defendant alleging that defendant committed intentional fraud 

and misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and unfair 
-2-

and deceptive trade practices against plaintiff when, on or 

about 1 August 2010, defendant sold plaintiff a 2000 BMW 338CI 

automobile for the purchase price of $5,000.00. Plaintiff 

alleged that two days after she purchased the vehicle from 

defendant, the vehicle failed inspection “for major defects that 

make the vehicle unsafe to be on the road.” She further alleged 

that, after taking the vehicle to the Autobahn Service Center in 

Clemmons, North Carolina, plaintiff “discovered that the vehicle 

had major problems, requiring major repair at a substantial 

cost,” that “the vehicle’s major deficiencies and repair needs 

were known by Autobahn prior to her purchase on August 1, 2010, 

and were known by [d]efendant prior to the purchase on August 1, 

2010,” and that defendant “purposely and willfully made 

misrepresentations of material facts concerning the condition of 

the vehicle to [p]laintiff with the intent to deceive 

[p]laintiff concerning the actual defective condition of said 

vehicle.” Plaintiff sought compensatory, punitive, and treble 

damages, as well as costs and fees, from defendant.

After hearing the matter without a jury, on 15 March 2012, 

the trial court entered a judgment in defendant’s favor, after 

concluding that defendant did not commit intentional fraud, 

negligent misrepresentation, or unfair and deceptive trade 

practices against plaintiff when he sold her the vehicle. 
-3-

Plaintiff appealed to this Court, which vacated the trial 

court’s judgment and remanded the matter for further 

proceedings, because the judgment “d[id] not contain findings of 

fact sufficient to support [it]” in accordance with N.C.G.S. 

§ 1A-1, Rule 52(a)(1). Hairston v. Collins, __ N.C. App. __, 

737 S.E.2d 191, slip op. at 2, 4 (2013) (unpublished). Upon

remand, on 12 April 2013 the trial court entered a new judgment 

in defendant’s favor in which it made findings of fact, 

conclusions of law, and taxed costs to plaintiff. Plaintiff 

appeals.

_________________________

“The standard of review on appeal from a judgment entered 

after a non-jury trial is ‘whether there is competent evidence 

to support the trial court’s findings of fact and whether the 

findings support the conclusions of law and ensuing judgment.’” 

Cartin v. Harrison, 151 N.C. App. 697, 699, 567 S.E.2d 174, 176 

(quoting Sessler v. Marsh, 144 N.C. App. 623, 628, 551 S.E.2d 

160, 163, disc. review and supersedeas denied, 354 N.C. 365, 

556 S.E.2d 577 (2001)), disc. review denied, 356 N.C. 434, 

572 S.E.2d 428 (2002). “Findings of fact are binding on appeal 

if there is competent evidence to support them, even if there is 

evidence to the contrary.” Sessler, 144 N.C. App. at 628, 

551 S.E.2d at 163.
-4-

In her brief, plaintiff does not challenge whether the 

trial court’s findings of fact support its conclusions that 

defendant “did not conceal a material fact and [that defendant] 

did not make a representation reasonably calculated to deceive 

[plaintiff].” Nor does plaintiff challenge on appeal whether 

the court’s findings of fact support its conclusions that 

defendant “did not act intentionally or with recklessness to 

deceive [plaintiff],” that defendant “exercised reasonable care 

in ascertaining the operability of the BMW and in communicating 

such to [plaintiff],” or that defendant “did not commit an 

unfair or deceptive act upon [p]laintiff” and “did not act in 

willful and wanton disregard of the rights of [plaintiff] in the 

transaction in question.” Instead, plaintiff purports to 

challenge only whether the evidence in the record supports the 

trial court’s findings of fact:

4. During the time that Collins owned the 

BMW, multiple repairs were identified

and completed including a problem with 

a wheel bearing of which Collins was 

aware at the time he purchased the 

vehicle.

5. Collins had all problems with the BMW 

that either existed at the time of

purchase, or that arose during its 

daily use, repaired by mechanics.

6. The final and latest repair made to the 

BMW was performed by Autobahn Service

Center on July 14, 2010. At that time, 

the engine light was on and was 
-5-

diagnosed by the mechanics at Autobahn 

as a problem with the exhaust cam 

sensor.

7. The sensor was replaced by Autobahn. 

After repairs were completed, 

everything was operable on the BMW 

including the engine light, and no 

other repairs were needed.

8. . . . Collins informed Hairston that he 

had done a lot of work to the BMW and 

that there were no problems with the 

vehicle of which he was aware. Collins 

also informed Hairston that he had all 

the maintenance records for the BMW.

. . . .

12. At the time Collins sold the BMW to 

Hairston, there were no apparent 

problems with the BMW nor was Collins 

aware of any problems with the BMW.

However, a careful examination of the evidence in the record 

before us, especially in the context of plaintiff’s arguments on 

appeal, reveals that there is competent evidence to support each 

of the challenged findings of fact, and that plaintiff’s 

arguments merely urge this Court to reweigh the evidence 

presented to the trial court and to give greater consideration 

to testimony that is favorable to her claims. When a trial 

judge sits “as ‘both judge and juror,’ as he or she does in a 

non-jury proceeding, it is that judge’s duty to weigh and 

consider all competent evidence, and pass upon the credibility 

of the witnesses, the weight to be given their testimony and the 
-6-

reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom.” In re Whisnant, 

71 N.C. App. 439, 441, 322 S.E.2d 434, 435 (1984) (quoting 

Knutton v. Cofield, 273 N.C. 355, 359, 160 S.E.2d 29, 33

(1968)). “If different inferences may be drawn from the 

evidence, [the trial judge] determines which inferences shall be 

drawn and which shall be rejected.” Knutton, 273 N.C. at 359,

160 S.E.2d at 33. Thus, despite plaintiff’s disputation of the 

evidence in defendant’s favor, we decline her entreaty to 

disturb the trial court’s findings because there is ample 

competent evidence in the record to support them, and they are, 

therefore, binding on appeal. See Sessler, 144 N.C. App. at

628, 551 S.E.2d at 163. Accordingly, and in the absence of any 

argument that the challenged findings failed to support the 

court’s conclusions, we conclude that plaintiff’s issues on 

appeal are without merit and we affirm the trial court’s 

judgment.

Affirmed.

Judges ERVIN and McCULLOUGH concur.

Report per Rule 30(e).