Court Opinion

ID: 9403048
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-20 12:06:40.266484+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:04.037296
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA

                                  No. COA22-422

                              Filed 20 June 2023

Johnston County, No. 21-CVS-568

THOMAS JARMAN and JESSICA VAUGHN, individually and as administrators of
the ESTATE OF GRESSY THOMAS JARMAN, Plaintiffs,

            v.

TWIDDY AND COMPANY OF DUCK, INC., ROGER STRICKER and PATRICIA
STRICKER, Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs,

           v.

GEORGIA MAY, Third-Party Defendant.

      Appeal by Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff Twiddy and Company of Duck, Inc.

from Order entered 15 December 2021 by Judge John W. Smith in Johnston County

Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 16 November 2022.

      Fox Rothschild LLP, by Matthew Nis Leerberg, Henson Fuerst, PA, by Carma
      L. Henson, and Silverman Thompson Slutkin & White, by Andrew George
      Slutkin and Ethan Shale Nochumowitz admitted pro hac vice, for Plaintiffs-
      Appellees Thomas Jarman and Jessica Vaughn.

      Poyner Spruill LLP, by Dylan J. Castellino and Timothy W. Wilson, for
      Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant Twiddy and Company of Duck,
      Inc.

      HAMPSON, Judge.

                    Factual and Procedural Background
                             JARMIN V. TWIDDY & CO. OF DUCK, INC.

                                         Opinion of the Court

          Twiddy and Company of Duck, Inc. (Twiddy) appeals from an Order entered

15 December 2021 denying its Motion to Change Venue of an action brought by

Thomas Jarman and Jessica Vaughn, individually and as administrators of the

Estate of Gressy Thomas Jarman (Plaintiffs). The Record before us tends to reflect

the following:

          On 3 June 2019, Plaintiffs’ minor child died after drowning in a pool at a

vacation home in Corolla, North Carolina owned by Roger and Patricia Stricker (the

Strickers).1 At the time, the vacation home was rented by Georgia May (May)2 under

a Vacation Rental Agreement with Twiddy, a realty company located in Duck, North

Carolina that served as the agent for the Strickers. Plaintiffs were not parties to the

Vacation Rental Agreement but were staying at the vacation home with May and

other family members.

          Relevant to this case, the Vacation Rental Agreement between Twiddy and

May provided:

                 Twiddy . . . is the Agent for a VACATION HOME . . . . The
                 owner . . . has given Agent the authority to enter into this
                 Agreement . . . . This Agreement sets forth the terms under
                 which You will lease the Premises through the Agent.

                  ....

                 1. THIS IS A VACATION RENTAL AGREEMENT
                 UNDER THE NORTH CAROLINA VACATION RENTAL
                 ACT . . . .

1   The Strickers are residents of Pennsylvania.
2   May is the grandmother of the minor child and a resident of Maryland.

                                                 -2-
          JARMIN V. TWIDDY & CO. OF DUCK, INC.

                     Opinion of the Court

2. Agent, as agent of the Owner, hereby rents to You and
You hereby rent from the Agent, the Premises in
accordance with the terms and conditions contained in this
Agreement . . . .

....

4. Use and Tenant Duties. The use of the Premises is
restricted to use by You and Your family . . . . The term
“family” as used herein means parents, grandparents,
children and extended family members vacationing at the
Premises.

....

17. Indemnification and Hold Harmless. You agree to
indemnify and save harmless the Owner and Agent from
any liabilities . . . arising from or related to any claim or
litigation which may arise out of or in connection with Your
use and occupancy of the Premises including but not
limited to any claim or liability. . . which is caused, made,
incurred or sustained by You as a result of any cause,
unless caused by the grossly negligent or willful act of
Agent or the Owner, or the failure of Agent or the Owner
to comply with the Vacation Rental Act. . . . The terms
“Tenant,” “You,” and “Your” as used in this Agreement
shall include Tenant’s heirs, successors, assigns, guests,
invitees, representatives and other persons on the
Premises during Your occupancy (without regard to
whether such persons have authority under this
Agreement to be upon the Premises), where the context
requires or permits.

....

21. Disputes: This Agreement shall be governed by and
interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of
North Carolina, and shall be treated as though it were
executed in the County of Dare, State of North Carolina.
Any action relating to this Agreement shall be instituted

                            -3-
                       JARMIN V. TWIDDY & CO. OF DUCK, INC.

                                  Opinion of the Court

             and prosecuted only in the Dare County Superior Court,
             North Carolina.       You specifically consent to such
             jurisdiction and to extraterritorial service of process. You
             shall be responsible for all legal fees and court costs
             incurred by Agent and Owner in the enforcement of their
             rights or Your obligations under this Agreement.

             22. Miscellaneous: You agree and have verified that for
             purposes of this vacation rental agreement that Your
             confirmation number shall serve as Your electronic
             signature and to be bound by same and in the same manner
             as if You had otherwise ordinarily executed the document.
             . . . Each section, subsection or paragraph of this
             Agreement shall be deemed severable . . . .

May electronically signed each individual paragraph of the Vacation Rental

Agreement.

      On 18 February 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against Twiddy and the

Strickers (collectively, Defendants) in Superior Court in Johnston County, North

Carolina, where Plaintiffs reside.    The Complaint alleged claims of negligence,

wrongful death, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and punitive damages.

Defendants both filed responsive pleadings generally denying liability in the form of

Motions, Answers, and Third-Party Complaints. The Third-Party Complaints joined

May as Third-Party Defendant alleging the Plaintiffs’ Complaint falls within the

Indemnification and Hold Harmless provision of the Vacation Rental Agreement.

      In their responsive pleadings, Defendants both included Motions to Change

Venue. The Motions alleged the terms of the Vacation Rental Agreement included a

mandatory forum-selection clause requiring this action be brought by Plaintiffs in

                                         -4-
                       JARMIN V. TWIDDY & CO. OF DUCK, INC.

                                  Opinion of the Court

Dare County, North Carolina. Defendants’ Motions were heard on 28 October 2021

in Johnston County Superior Court.       Defendants contended Plaintiffs should be

bound by the Vacation Rental Agreement—specifically, the provision requiring “Any

action relating to this Agreement shall be instituted and prosecuted only in the Dare

County Superior Court, North Carolina”—as third-party beneficiaries to the Vacation

Rental Agreement or by the doctrine of equitable estoppel.        Defendants further

contended the language of the Vacation Rental Agreement is broad enough to cover

Plaintiffs’ claims for negligence, wrongful death, negligent infliction of emotional

distress, and punitive damages.

      On 15 December 2021, the trial court entered its Order Denying Defendants’

Motions to Change Venue. In its Order, the trial court included Findings of Fact:

         14. Thomas Jarman did not sign the Vacation Rental Agreement.

         15. Jessica Vaughn did not sign the Vacation Rental Agreement.

         16. No evidence has been presented that Thomas Jarman ever
         read, or was aware, of the terms of the Vacation Rental
         Agreement.

         17. No evidence was presented that Jessica Vaughn ever read, or
         was aware, of the terms of the Vacation Rental Agreement.

         18. Plaintiffs were not parties to the Vacation Rental Agreement.

         19. The signatories to the Vacation Rental Agreement did not
         intend to confer a direct benefit on Plaintiffs, and there was never
         a meeting of the minds that the plaintiffs would become parties
         or third[-]party beneficiaries to the contract.

                                         -5-
                          JARMIN V. TWIDDY & CO. OF DUCK, INC.

                                      Opinion of the Court

           20. Plaintiffs were not actively nor directly involved in the
           formation of the Vacation Rental Agreement.

           21. Plaintiff[s’] causes of action are only based upon duties
           imposed on Defendants by North Carolina common law and North
           Carolina statutory law.

           22. Plaintiffs’ causes of action do not arise out of or relate to the
           Vacation Rental Agreement.

           23. The Plaintiffs are not seeking the benefit of the Vacation
           Rental Agreement. Plaintiffs’ causes of action exist separate and
           apart from the Vacation Rental Agreement entered into between
           Defendant Twiddy and Third-Party Defendant . . . May, and do
           not arise out of or relate to the Vacation Rental Agreement.

           24. The Court distinctly makes no findings of fact regarding
           whether the forum-selection clause of the Vacation Rental
           Agreement should, or should not, be enforced against . . . May.
           That issue is not presently before this Court.

The trial court then concluded: Plaintiffs were not third-party beneficiaries of the

Vacation Rental Agreement; Plaintiffs were not equitably estopped from denying the

applicability of the forum-selection clause; and Plaintiffs’ causes of action did not

arise out of or relate to the Vacation Rental Agreement. Finally, the trial court

concluded Johnston County was a proper venue for this action pursuant to N.C. Gen.

Stat. § 1-82. Twiddy timely filed written Notice of Appeal from the Order Denying

Defendants’ Motions to Change Venue on 10 January 2022.3

                                  Appellate Jurisdiction

3 The Strickers did not separately appeal. Neither the Strickers nor May have made any appearance
in this Court.

                                              -6-
                        JARMIN V. TWIDDY & CO. OF DUCK, INC.

                                   Opinion of the Court

      The trial court’s Order Denying Defendants’ Motions to Change Venue is an

interlocutory order. “An interlocutory order is one made during the pendency of an

action, which does not dispose of the case, but leaves it for further action by the trial

court in order to settle and determine the entire controversy.” McClennahan v. N.C.

School of the Arts, 177 N.C. App. 806, 807-08, 630 S.E.2d 197, 199 (2006) (citation

and quotation marks omitted).       “Generally, a party has no right to appeal an

interlocutory order.” Cox v. Dine-A-Mate, Inc., 129 N.C. App. 773, 775, 501 S.E.2d

353, 354 (1998) (citing N.C. Dep’t of Transportation v. Page, 119 N.C. App. 730, 733,

460 S.E.2d 332, 334 (1995)). “However, ‘an appeal is permitted . . . if the trial court’s

decision deprives the appellant of a substantial right [that] would be lost absent

immediate review.’ ” Id. (citing Page, 119 N.C. App at 734, 460 S.E.2d at 334). “ ‘[A]n

immediate appeal is permitted where an erroneous order denying a party the right

to have the case heard in the proper court would work an injury to the aggrieved

party [that] would not be corrected if no appeal was allowed before the final

judgment.’ ” Id. at 775-76, 501 S.E.2d 354-55 (quoting Perkins v. CCH Computax,

Inc., 106 N.C. App. 210, 212, 415 S.E.2d 755, 757, reviewed on other grounds, 332

N.C. 149, 419 S.E.2d 574, decision reversed, 333 N.C. 140, 423 S.E.2d 780 (1992)).

      This Court has recognized an order denying a motion based on improper venue,

which asserts venue is proper elsewhere, affects a substantial right because it

“ ‘would work an injury to the aggrieved party which could not be corrected if no

appeal was allowed before the final judgment.’ ” Thompson v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 140

                                          -7-
                        JARMIN V. TWIDDY & CO. OF DUCK, INC.

                                   Opinion of the Court

N.C. App. 115, 121-22, 535 S.E.2d 397, 401 (2000) (quoting DesMarais v. Dimmette,

70 N.C. App. 134, 136, 318 S.E.2d 887, 889 (1984)). Likewise, orders addressing the

validity of a forum-selection clause also affect a substantial right. US Chem. Storage,

LLC v. Berto Constr., Inc., 253 N.C. App. 378, 381, 800 S.E.2d 716, 719 (2017). Thus,

Twiddy’s appeal from the trial court’s denial of Defendants’ Motions to Change Venue

is properly before us as the trial court’s Order denying Defendants’ Motions affects a

substantial right.

                                         Issues

      The key issues on appeal are whether, on the facts of this case, Plaintiffs—as

non-signatories to the Vacation Rental Agreement—may be bound by the forum-

selection clause contained in the Vacation Rental Agreement as (I) third-party

beneficiaries or (II) by equitable estoppel.

                                       Analysis

      As a preliminary matter, the parties disagree on the standard of review we

should apply to the trial court’s Order in this case. Twiddy contends we should

employ a de novo review. Plaintiffs assert our review is limited to whether the trial

court abused its discretion in denying the change of venue.

      “Generally, a trial court’s denial of a motion to change venue ‘will not be

disturbed absent a showing of a manifest abuse of discretion.’ ” LendingTree, LLC v.

Anderson, 228 N.C. App. 403, 407, 747 S.E.2d 292, 296 (2013) (quoting Carolina

Forest Ass’n, Inc. v. White, 198 N.C. App. 1, 10, 678 S.E.2d 725, 732 (2009) (citation

                                          -8-
                          JARMIN V. TWIDDY & CO. OF DUCK, INC.

                                   Opinion of the Court

and quotation marks omitted)). Likewise, as a general proposition, “[w]e employ the

abuse-of-discretion standard to review a trial court’s decision concerning clauses on

venue selection.” Mark Grp. Int’l, Inc. v. Still, 151 N.C. App. 565, 566, 566 S.E.2d

160, 161 (2002) (citation omitted). In particular, we apply an abuse of discretion

standard when the trial court issues an order regarding the enforceability of a venue-

selection clause under a Rule 12(b)(3) motion. See Wall v. Automoney, Inc., 284 N.C.

App. 514, 529, 877 S.E.2d 37, 51 (2022), rev. denied ___ N.C. ___, 884 S.E.2d 739

(2023); see also SED Holdings, LLC v. 3 Star Props., LLC, 246 N.C. App. 632, 636,

784 S.E.2d 627, 630 (2016); Davis v. Hall, 223 N.C. App. 109, 110, 733 S.E.2d 878,

880 (2012); Cable Tel. Servs., Inc. v. Overland Contr’g., Inc., 154 N.C. App. 639, 645,

574 S.E.2d 31, 35 (2002); Mark Grp. Int’l, Inc., 151 N.C. App. at 568, 566 S.E.2d at

162; Appliance Sales & Serv., Inc. v. Command Elecs. Corp., 115 N.C. App. 14, 21,

443 S.E.2d 784, 789 (1994). We apply the abuse of discretion standard in these cases

because the disposition of these cases is “highly fact-specific.” Cox, 129 N.C. App. at

776, 501 S.E.2d at 355 (citation omitted). On the other hand, when a trial court is

called upon to interpret a forum- or venue-selection clause as a matter of law, we

review the trial court’s decision de novo. US Chem. Storage, LLC, 253 N.C. App. at

382, 800 S.E.2d at 720.

      In this case, we broadly apply an abuse of discretion standard to the trial

court’s Order because the central determination made by the trial court was whether

to enforce the forum-selection clause in the Vacation Rental Agreement between

                                          -9-
                            JARMIN V. TWIDDY & CO. OF DUCK, INC.

                                         Opinion of the Court

Twiddy and May as against Plaintiffs.4 However, the trial court’s decision not to

enforce the forum-selection clause stemmed from its legal conclusions Plaintiffs were

not third-party beneficiaries or estopped from denying the applicability of the forum-

selection clause.5 “[T]he trial court’s articulation and application of the relevant legal

standard is a legal question that is reviewed de novo.” Miller v. Carolina Coast

Emergency Physicians, LLC, 382 N.C. 91, 104, 876 S.E.2d 436, 447 (2022) (citation

omitted). “And, whatever the standard of review, ‘an error of law is an abuse of

discretion.’ ” Id. (quoting Da Silva v. WakeMed, 375 N.C. 1, 5 n.2, 846 S.E.2d 634,

638 (2020)); cf. LendingTree, LLC , 228 N.C. App. at 407, 747 S.E.2d at 296

(“Therefore, although we apply abuse of discretion review to general venue decisions,

we apply de novo review to waiver arguments.” (citation omitted)).

    I.   Third-Party Beneficiaries

         On appeal, Twiddy first contends the trial court erred by failing to apply the

third-party beneficiary doctrine to bind Plaintiffs to the forum-selection clause. The

4 Indeed, the parties agree the forum-selection clause itself is properly interpreted as mandatory and
not permissive. The parties do, however, disagree as to whether—if the forum-selection clause was
deemed enforceable as to Plaintiffs—Plaintiffs’ claims in this case would otherwise fall within the
scope of the forum-selection clause’s language.
5 The trial court included these determinations as both findings of fact and conclusions of law. We

view the trial court’s application of the third-party beneficiary and equitable estoppel doctrines to be
in the nature of conclusions of law. See Phelps Staffing, LLC v. S.C. Phelps, Inc., 217 N.C. App. 403,
412, 720 S.E.2d 785, 792 (2011) (“Generally, any determination requiring the exercise of judgment or
the application of legal principles is more properly classified a conclusion of law.” (citation and
quotation marks omitted)).

                                                - 10 -
                       JARMIN V. TWIDDY & CO. OF DUCK, INC.

                                  Opinion of the Court

third-party beneficiary doctrine usually applies to allow a third-party to enforce a

contract executed for their direct benefit. See Raritan River Steel Co. v. Cherry,

Bekaert & Holland, 329 N.C. 646, 650, 407 S.E.2d 178, 181 (1991). A party “is a third-

party beneficiary if she can show (1) that a contract exists between two persons or

entities; (2) that the contract is valid and enforceable; and (3) that the contract was

executed for the direct, and not incidental, benefit of the plaintiff.” Holshouser v.

Shaner Hotel Grp. Properties One Ltd. P’ship, 134 N.C. App. 391, 399-400, 518 S.E.2d

17, 25 (1999), aff’d, 351 N.C. 330, 524 S.E.2d 568 (2000). Here, however, Twiddy

contends that the Vacation Rental Agreement—existing between Twiddy and May

and as otherwise generally enforceable—was executed for the direct benefit of

Plaintiffs, and, thus, Plaintiffs—as third-party beneficiaries—should be bound by its

provisions.

      In support of its position, Twiddy relies in large part on our decision in LSB

Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Harrison, 144 N.C. App. 542, 548 S.E.2d 574 (2001). There, this

Court affirmed a trial court’s decision enforcing an arbitration clause in an agreement

against a third-party to the agreement. Id. at 543, 548 S.E.2d 575. In that case, the

plaintiff was a banking institution and the defendant was a former employee of the

plaintiff. Under then-existing law, the plaintiff was not permitted to become a

member of the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (NASD) and,

consequently, could not engage in the business of securities transactions unless it

partnered with a NASD member. Id. The plaintiff partnered with a registered

                                         - 11 -
                              JARMIN V. TWIDDY & CO. OF DUCK, INC.

                                           Opinion of the Court

brokerage and the defendant served as a “dual employee” of the plaintiff and the

securities brokerage. Id. at 543, 584 S.E.2d at 576. This allowed the defendant to

serve as a broker under the supervision and control of the plaintiff. Id. The plaintiff

was then permitted to share in the profits derived from the defendant’s securities

brokerage work. Id. In order to perform the securities brokerage work, the defendant

was required to apply and register with NASD using a U-4 form. Id. at 543-44, 584

S.E.2d at 576. The U-4 registration form with NASD included an arbitration clause.

Id. at 544, 584 S.E.2d at 576. The defendant voluntarily terminated her employment

with the plaintiff and joined another brokerage. Id. The plaintiff sued the defendant

alleging, among other things, a breach of a separate non-compete. Id. The defendant

moved to compel arbitration against the plaintiff even though the plaintiff was not

(and could not) be a party to the U-4 registration with NASD. Id.

          Our Court explained the direct benefit the plaintiff received from the U-4:

“plaintiff required defendant to sign the U-4 Form so that plaintiff would be in a

lawful position to benefit from the business of securities transactions.” Id. at 549, 548

S.E.2d at 579.          As such, the plaintiff was an intended beneficiary of the U-4

registration and, therefore, deemed to be in privity of contract as a third-party

beneficiary. Id. at 548, 548 S.E.2d 578-79. As a result, we held the plaintiff could be

compelled to arbitrate its claims against the defendant.6

6   Our decision in that case also found grounding in equitable estoppel and principles of agency.

                                                  - 12 -
                         JARMIN V. TWIDDY & CO. OF DUCK, INC.

                                    Opinion of the Court

       Indeed, the benefit the plaintiff received in LSB Fin. Servs. is illustrative of

the type of benefit our Courts have required to show a direct—rather than

incidental—benefit for purposes of invoking the third-party beneficiary doctrine. “ ‘A

person is a direct beneficiary of the contract if the contracting parties intended to

confer a legally enforceable benefit on that person.’ ” Revels v. Miss Am. Org., 182

N.C. App. 334, 336, 641 S.E.2d 721, 723 (2007) (quoting Holshouser, 134 N.C. App. at

400, 518 S.E.2d at 25). “ ‘It is not enough that the contract, in fact, benefits the [third-

party], if, when the contract was made, the contracting parties did not intend it to

benefit the [third-party] directly.’ ” Id. “ ‘As a general proposition, the determining

factor as to the rights of a third[-]party beneficiary is the intention of the parties who

actually made the contract.’ ” Vogel v. Reed Supply Co., 277 N.C. 119, 128, 177 S.E.2d

273, 279 (1970) (quoting 17 Am.Jur.2d, Contracts § 304). “ ‘The real test is said to be

whether the contracting parties intended that a third person should receive a benefit

which might be enforced in the courts.’ ” Id. “The Court, in determining the parties’

intentions, should consider circumstances surrounding the transaction as well as the

actual language of the contract.” Raritan River Steel Co., 329 N.C. at 652, 407 S.E.2d

at 182.

       In LSB Fin. Servs., the whole purpose of the U-4 registration form was to allow

the plaintiff to legally engage in securities brokering. The plaintiff was not only

aware of the U-4 form but required the defendant (plaintiff’s employee) to register

with NASD. Not only did the defendant’s registration confer upon the plaintiff the

                                           - 13 -
                         JARMIN V. TWIDDY & CO. OF DUCK, INC.

                                   Opinion of the Court

legal right to engage in securities brokering, but it also had the direct benefit of

granting the plaintiff the right to be compensated for securities brokerage work,

through the efforts of its employee.

       In the case sub judice, unlike in LSB Fin. Servs., the Vacation Rental

Agreement between Twiddy and May was not intended to directly benefit Plaintiffs

by vesting them with any legally enforceable right. Certainly, Plaintiffs, themselves,

are not expressly designated as beneficiaries under the Vacation Rental Agreement.

Moreover, as the trial court found, there was no evidence Plaintiffs ever read or were

aware of the terms of the Vacation Rental Agreement. Further, there is no evidence

Plaintiffs were active or involved in entering into the Vacation Rental Agreement.

On the Record before us, there is no evidence of “the type of active and direct dealings

which courts have required to confer third[-]party beneficiary status on a party not

contemplated by the contract itself.” Hospira Inc. v. Alphagary Corp., 194 N.C. App.

695, 703, 671 S.E.2d 7, 13 (2009) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

       Twiddy, nevertheless, contends the provisions of the Vacation Rental

Agreement placed Plaintiffs in a class of persons intended to benefit from the

contractual relationship between Twiddy and May.           First, Twiddy points to the

provisions restricting use of the vacation home to May and May’s “family”. Second,

Twiddy relies on provisions of the indemnification clause. These provisions, however,

do not provide any direct benefit to Plaintiffs or evidence any intent to provide a direct

benefit to Plaintiffs.

                                          - 14 -
                         JARMIN V. TWIDDY & CO. OF DUCK, INC.

                                  Opinion of the Court

      As an initial matter, by its very terms, the provision restricting use of the

property does not purport to confer any benefit on May or any user of the property.

The provision restricting use of the property provides:

             4. Use and Tenant Duties. The use of the Premises is
             restricted to use by You and Your family . . . . The term
             “family” as used herein means parents, grandparents,
             children and extended family members vacationing at the
             Premises.

It serves to expressly restrict May in whom she may invite to use the property during

her tenancy. Further, the provision provides no legally enforceable right of access to

the property by Plaintiffs (or other family members). See Raritan River Steel Co., 329

N.C. at 652, 407 S.E.2d at 182. It merely grants May the ability to invite family

members to use the property. As such, any benefit to Plaintiffs was purely incidental.

Twiddy, nevertheless, contends—by virtue of this provision—Plaintiffs became

lawful users of the property.     To the contrary, however, this provision plainly

supposes that in its absence, Plaintiffs (along with any number of others) could have

been lawful users of the property. In any event, there is no evidence or showing this

provision was intended to directly benefit Plaintiffs.    Rather, the intent of this

provision appears to be to provide uniformity in the types of users to whom Twiddy

would rent the property on behalf of the Strickers. See Revels, 182 N.C. App. at 336-

37, 641 S.E.2d at 724.

                                         - 15 -
                       JARMIN V. TWIDDY & CO. OF DUCK, INC.

                                  Opinion of the Court

      Likewise, the indemnity provision certainly itself provides no benefit to May

or Plaintiffs. Rather, it is intended to attempt to cast a wide net over those from

which Defendants might seek indemnification for damages. The provision provides:

             17. Indemnification and Hold Harmless. You agree to
             indemnify and save harmless the Owner and Agent for any
             liabilities . . . arising from or related to any claim or
             litigation which may arise out of or in connection with Your
             use and occupancy of the Premises including but not
             limited to any claim or liability. . . which is caused, made,
             incurred or sustained by You as a result of any cause,
             unless caused by the grossly negligent or willful act of
             Agent or the Owner, or the failure of Agent or the Owner
             to comply with the Vacation Rental Act. . . . The terms
             “Tenant,” “You,” and “Your” as used in this Agreement shall
             include Tenant’s heirs, successors, assigns, guests, invitees,
             representatives and other persons on the Premises during
             Your occupancy (without regard to whether such persons
             have authority under this Agreement to be upon the
             Premises), where the context requires or permits.

(emphasis added).

      To be fair, Twiddy does not contend the indemnity provision itself provides any

benefit to Plaintiffs. Instead, Twiddy asserts because the provision provides its

definition of “You” and “Your” is “as used in this Agreement”, then this definition

should apply to the forum-selection clause which states: “You specifically consent to

such jurisdiction and to extraterritorial service of process.” As such, Twiddy argues

Plaintiffs—as guests or invitees—should be bound as third-parties to the forum-

selection clause.   However, this argument ignores the fact the Vacation Rental

Agreement expressly provides its provisions are severable and, indeed, May was

                                         - 16 -
                       JARMIN V. TWIDDY & CO. OF DUCK, INC.

                                  Opinion of the Court

required to execute each provision individually. See Wooten v. Walters, 110 N.C. 251,

254-55, 14 S.E. 734, 735 (1892) (“A contract is entire, and not severable, when by its

terms, nature and purpose, it contemplates and intends that each and all of its parts,

material provisions, and the consideration, are common each to the other, and

interdependent. . . . On the other hand, a severable contract is one in its nature and

purpose susceptible of division and apportionment, having two or more parts, in

respect to matters and things contemplated and embraced by it, not necessarily

dependent upon each other, nor is it intended by the parties that they shall be.”).

      Moreover, Twiddy’s argument that “You” and “Your” as defined by the

indemnity provision should be read uniformly into and throughout the Vacation

Rental Agreement is defeated by the fact it is plainly apparent in the terms of the

agreement itself that Defendants themselves intended no such thing. By way of

illustration, employing the expansive definitions of “You” and “Your” to the provision

restricting use of the property “by You and Your family” yields ludicrous results

permitting practically anyone to use the property during May’s tenancy resulting in

essentially no restriction whatsoever. It would mean the property would be restricted

to use by May and her heirs, successors, assigns, guests, invitees, representatives,

and other persons on the Premises during May’s occupancy (without regard to

whether such persons have authority under this Agreement to be upon the Premises)

. . . and their families (including extended families). In other words, use would not

be restricted to just May and her family members—it could include everyone from

                                         - 17 -
                           JARMIN V. TWIDDY & CO. OF DUCK, INC.

                                        Opinion of the Court

non-family social guests and their families, delivery drivers and their families, and

even complete strangers who would otherwise be trespassers and their families. This

would functionally obliterate the provision restricting use of the property. We decline

to interpret the Vacation Rental Agreement to reach such an absurd result. See Atl.

Disc. Corp. v. Mangel’s of N.C., Inc., 2 N.C. App. 472, 478, 163 S.E.2d 295, 299 (1968)

(“A construction of a contract leading to an absurd, harsh or unreasonable result

should be avoided if possible.” (citing 51C C.J.S. Landlord and Tenant § 232(4), p.

594)). As such, it could not have been the parties’ intent that these definitions of “You”

and “Your” be applied throughout the Vacation Rental Agreement as Twiddy

contends.7 In turn, then, this provision evinces no intent on the part of the parties to

directly benefit Plaintiffs or bind them to the Vacation Rental Agreement, including

specifically to the forum-selection clause as third-party beneficiaries.

       In summary, there is no showing on this Record that Defendants and May

intended to confer any legally enforceable right on Plaintiffs via the Vacation Rental

Agreement.      Instead, the Record here reflects any benefit incurred by Plaintiffs

through the Vacation Rental Agreement was incidental and not direct. As such,

Twiddy has failed to show Plaintiffs were third-party beneficiaries to the Vacation

Rental Agreement. In turn, we conclude the trial court did not err by declining to

7 We acknowledge the additional clause appended to the definition of “You” and “Your” in the
indemnification provision which states: “where the context requires or permits.” The parties make no
argument as to how this clause operates in the context of the definition. It could modify “as used in
this Agreement” or it could modify “other persons”. It could have some other function entirely.

                                               - 18 -
                        JARMIN V. TWIDDY & CO. OF DUCK, INC.

                                   Opinion of the Court

apply the third-party beneficiary doctrine to bind Plaintiffs to the forum-selection

clause.

II.   Equitable Estoppel

      Next, Twiddy contends the trial court also erred by failing to apply the doctrine

of equitable estoppel to bind Plaintiffs to the forum-selection clause in the Vacation

Rental Agreement. “ ‘Equitable estoppel precludes a party from asserting rights he

otherwise would have had against another when his own conduct renders assertion

of those rights contrary to equity.’ ” Ellen v. A.C. Schultes of Md., Inc., 172 N.C. App.

317, 321, 615 S.E.2d 729, 732 (2005) (quoting Int’l Paper Co. v. Schwabedissen

Maschinen & Anlagen GMBH, 206 F.3d 411, 417-18 (4th Cir. 2000) (citation and

quotation marks omitted)).

      While Twiddy identifies no prior case where Courts have applied equitable

estoppel to bind a party to a forum- or venue-selection clause, both parties again

analogize this situation to cases involving arbitration clauses. In that context, we

have recognized: “ ‘[A] nonsignatory to an arbitration clause may, in certain

situations, compel a signatory to the clause to arbitrate the signatory’s claims against

the nonsignatory despite the fact that the signatory and nonsignatory lack an

agreement to arbitrate.’ ” Smith Jamison Constr. v. APAC-Atl., Inc., 257 N.C. App.

714, 717, 811 S.E.2d 635, 638 (2018) (quoting Am. Bankers Ins. Grp., Inc. v. Long, 453

F.3d 623, 627 (4th Cir. 2006)). “ ‘One such situation exists when the signatory is

equitably estopped from arguing that a nonsignatory is not a party to the arbitration

                                          - 19 -
                        JARMIN V. TWIDDY & CO. OF DUCK, INC.

                                   Opinion of the Court

clause.’ ” Id. “ ‘In the arbitration context, the doctrine recognizes that a party may be

estopped from asserting that the lack of his signature on a written contract precludes

enforcement of the contract’s arbitration clause when he has consistently maintained

that other provisions of the same contract should be enforced to benefit him.’ ” Ellen,

172 N.C. App. at 321, 615 S.E.2d at 732 (quoting Schwabedissen, 206 F.3d at 418).

“ ‘To allow [a plaintiff] to claim the benefit of the contract and simultaneously avoid

its burdens would both disregard equity and contravene the purposes underlying

enactment of the Arbitration Act.’ ” Id. For example, “In Schwabedissen, the Fourth

Circuit Court of Appeals noted that ‘[a] nonsignatory is estopped from refusing to

comply with an arbitration clause “when it [is seeking or] receives a ‘direct benefit’

from a contract containing an arbitration clause.” ’ ” Id.; see also LSB Fin. Servs., 144

N.C. App. at 548, 548 S.E.2d at 579.

      “[W]here the issue is whether the underlying claims are such that the party

asserting them should be estopped from denying the application of the arbitration

clause, a court should examine whether the plaintiff has asserted claims in the

underlying suit that, either literally or obliquely, assert a breach of a duty created by

the contract containing the arbitration clause.” Carter v. TD Ameritrade Holding

Corp., 218 N.C. App. 222, 231, 721 S.E.2d 256, 263 (2012) (citation and quotation

marks omitted). Even where a plaintiff’s claims sound in tort and not contract, a

plaintiff may not avoid arbitration where the claims at their root are an attempt to

hold the opposing party to the terms of the contract. See id. at 232, 721 S.E.2d at

                                          - 20 -
                        JARMIN V. TWIDDY & CO. OF DUCK, INC.

                                   Opinion of the Court

263. Nevertheless, where a party’s claims “are dependent upon legal duties imposed

by North Carolina statutory or common law rather than contract law,” equitable

estoppel does not operate to require enforcement of an arbitration clause against a

non-signatory even where the contract “provides part of the factual foundation” for

plaintiffs’ complaint. Ellen, 172 N.C. App. at 322, 615 S.E.2d at 732-33; see also

Smith Jamison Constr., 257 N.C. App. at 720-21, 811 S.E.2d at 640 (applying Ellen

to conclude “Although the existence of the Subcontract ‘[p]rovide[s] part of the factual

foundation for [the] complaint,’ [the] claims . . . are ‘dependent upon legal duties

imposed by North Carolina statutory or common law rather than contract law.’ ”).

      Applying these analogous principles to this case, Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges

no breach of duty owed to them by the Vacation Rental Agreement. The Complaint

further makes no allegation the Vacation Rental Agreement conferred any direct

benefit on them. Indeed, the Complaint includes no claim or allegation whatsoever

arising out of the Vacation Rental Agreement itself.

      To the contrary, the Complaint is grounded in claims for negligence and

wrongful death dependent upon legal duties allegedly imposed on Defendants by

North Carolina statutory or common law rather than contract law. Ellen, 172 N.C.

App. at 322, 615 S.E.2d at 732. Twiddy contends, however, the provisions of the

Vacation Rental Agreement operating to allow Plaintiffs to be permissive users of the

property during May’s tenancy and providing the Strickers “agree to provide the

                                          - 21 -
                           JARMIN V. TWIDDY & CO. OF DUCK, INC.

                                          Opinion of the Court

premises to You in a fit and habitable condition” forms the basis for Plaintiffs’ claims.8

Plaintiffs’ Complaint makes no such allegations. For example, there is no claim

Plaintiffs are entitled to any refund of rent paid as a result of any breach of the duty

under the Agreement. Moreover, even if the Vacation Rental Agreement—including

listing May’s family as permissive users of the property—“provides part of the factual

foundation” for Plaintiffs’ Complaint,9 “[P]laintiffs’ ‘entire case’ does not ‘hinge[ ] on

[any] asserted rights under the . . . contract.’ ” Ellen, 172 N.C. App. at 322, 615 S.E.2d

at 732-33 (citation omitted). As such, we conclude the doctrine of equitable estoppel

did not require the trial court, under these facts and allegations, to bind Plaintiffs to

the forum-selection clause in the Vacation Rental Agreement. See Smith Jamison

Constr., 257 N.C. App. at 721, 811 S.E.2d at 640.

                                      *        *            *    *

       Thus, as a matter of law, on the facts and allegations of this case, Plaintiffs—

as non-signatories to the Vacation Rental Agreement—may not be bound by the

forum-selection clause contained in the Vacation Rental Agreement as third-party

beneficiaries or by equitable estoppel.              Therefore, the trial court did not err by

declining to enforce the forum-selection clause against Plaintiffs in this action.

8 This agreement to provide the premises in fit and habitable condition really appears to be intended
to provide Defendants with the opportunity to cure any defect or offer substitute performance prior to
having to refund May’s rental.
9 It bears mentioning both sets of Defendants, in their Answers, admit upon information and belief

the allegation Plaintiffs and their minor child were lawful visitors and/or tenants at the time of the
incident. Thus, how and whether Plaintiffs were permissive users of the property at the time is not
even really at issue in the case.

                                                   - 22 -
                             JARMIN V. TWIDDY & CO. OF DUCK, INC.

                                          Opinion of the Court

Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Motions to

Transfer Venue.10

                                             Conclusion

        Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the trial court’s 15 December 2021

Order denying the Defendants’ Motions to Change Venue is affirmed.

        AFFIRMED.

        Judges ZACHARY and GRIFFIN concur.

10We express no opinion as to whether—if Plaintiffs were bound by the Vacation Rental Agreement—
Plaintiffs’ claims would fall within the scope of the forum-selection clause. Like the trial court, we also
express no opinion as to whether the forum-selection clause applies to Defendants’ third-party claims
against May. We also express no opinion as to whether Defendants may have waived application of
the forum-selection clause by bringing their third-party indemnification action in Johnston County.

                                                  - 23 -