Court Opinion

ID: 9956420
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-02 12:05:37.647888+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:16:14.976990
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA

                                   No. COA23-752

                                  Filed 2 April 2024

Mecklenburg County, No. 18 CVD 20536

DAN KING PLUMBING HEATING & AIR, LLC, Plaintiff,

              v.

AVONZO HARRISON, Defendant.

        Appeal by plaintiff from an order entered 25 April 2023 by Judge Matt Newton

in Mecklenburg County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 24 January

2024.

        Hull & Chandler, P.A., by Nathan M. Hull, for Plaintiff-appellant.

        Devore, Acton, & Stafford, P.A., by Joseph R. Pellington, for Defendant-
        appellee.

        WOOD, Judge.

        On 18 January 2022, this Court rendered an opinion on issues arising from

these parties’ dispute pertaining to plumbing services rendered by Dan King

(“Plaintiff”) for Avonzo Harrison (“Defendant”). Dan King Plumbing Heating & Air

Conditioning, LLC v. Harrison, 281 N.C. App. 312, 869 S.E.2d 34 (2022) (“Dan King

Plumbing I”). Plaintiff contends the trial court erred in its interpretation of this

Court’s remand orders in Dan King Plumbing I. For the reasons stated below, we

affirm the trial court’s order.
               DAN KING PLUMBING HEATING & AIR, LLC V. HARRISON

                                  Opinion of the Court

                       I. Factual and Procedural History

      The source of the parties’ dispute is Plaintiff’s installation of an HVAC system

in Defendant’s home. Plaintiff began work in November 2017, and the plumbing work

was completed and passed final inspection on 4 December 2017. Dan King Plumbing

I, 281 N.C. App. at 314–15, 869 S.E.2d at 39–40. In August 2018, Plaintiff filed a

small claims action against Defendant for monies owed for services Plaintiff

rendered. Id. at 317, 869 S.E.2d at 41. A magistrate dismissed the action, and

Plaintiff appealed to the district court.      In November 2018, Defendant filed a

counterclaim against Plaintiff, “alleging various misrepresentations and contractual

breaches.” Id. at 318, 869 S.E.2d at 41. In an amended counterclaim, Defendant

added claims for breach of contract, unfair and deceptive trade practices, fraud, and

breach of the implied warranty of workmanship. Ultimately, the case proceeded to

trial with Judge Paulina Havelka (“Judge Havelka”) presiding, after which a “jury

returned a verdict in favor of Defendant on all breach of contract claims and findings

of fact concerning the UDTP [unfair and deceptive trade practices] claims. The jury

awarded Defendant damages in the amount of $15,572 for the breach of contract and

$15,000 for injuries associated with the UDTP claims.” Id. at 318, 869 S.E.2d at 42.

      After trial, in February 2020, Judge Havelka held an additional hearing “to

determine whether the facts found by the jury amounted to UDTP as a matter of law.”

Id. On 11 March 2020, Judge Havelka entered a “written judgment in favor of

Defendant, awarding him damages of $15,572 plus interest on the breach of contract

                                         -2-
               DAN KING PLUMBING HEATING & AIR, LLC V. HARRISON

                                  Opinion of the Court

claims . . . . The judgment noted that none of the jury’s findings amounted to unfair

or deceptive trade practices[ ] and dismissed all of the parties’ remaining claims with

prejudice.” Id. at 319, 869 S.E.2d at 42. Both parties appealed.

      In adjudicating the parties’ appeal, this Court first determined whether the

jury’s findings amounted to UDTP, which Defendant argued Plaintiff committed “in

three respects: (1) by superimposing Mr. Harrison’s signature on the amended

contract; (2) by selling him duplicate warranties [the “duplicate warranties claim”];

and (3) by misrepresenting the completeness of the work via the installation

checklist.” Id. at 319–21, 869 S.E.2d at 42–43. Specifically, this Court “examine[d]

two corollary doctrines under our UDTP caselaw—the ‘aggravating circumstances’

doctrine, and the ‘reliance’ doctrine.” Id. at 319–20, 869 S.E.2d at 42. This Court

affirmed Judge Havelka’s rulings as to the superimposition of Defendant’s signature

and the installation checklist—that neither allegation of misconduct constituted a

UDTP claim. Id. at 324, 328, 869 S.E.2d at 45, 48. As for the sale of duplicate

warranties, this Court first held “the aggravating circumstances doctrine is not

triggered.” Id. at 325, 869 S.E.2d at 46. Second, this Court applied the reliance

doctrine to the claim, examining whether Defendant’s reliance on Plaintiff’s

misrepresentation was reasonable. Id. This Court held:

             [W]e are unable to determine based on the record whether
             Defendant would have discovered the existence of the
             duplicate warranties through reasonable diligence at the
             time of the original contract, and we do not have the benefit
             of any jury findings on this issue. During trial, no evidence

                                         -3-
               DAN KING PLUMBING HEATING & AIR, LLC V. HARRISON

                                  Opinion of the Court

             was presented regarding whether the existence of HVAC
             manufacturer warranties is considered “common
             knowledge” (especially to a layperson); no evidence was
             presented regarding how it was that Defendant ultimately
             came to discover the existence of the manufacturer
             warranties; and no evidence was presented regarding
             whether it was a common practice in the HVAC industry
             to sell parts warranties for products that were already
             covered by a manufacturer warranty.

Id. at 326, 869 S.E.2d at 47 (emphasis added). Ultimately, this Court held Judge

Havelka erred in her determination that Defendant’s duplicate warranties claim

failed as a matter of law and therefore “remand[ed] for further fact-finding on the

issue of Defendant’s reasonable diligence in discovering the existence and coverage of

the duplicate warranties.” Id. at 327, 869 S.E.2d at 47.

      In Dan King Plumbing I, this Court also addressed Plaintiff’s argument “that

the trial court erred in failing to grant a directed verdict on Defendant’s breach of

contract claims.” Id. at 331, 869 S.E.2d at 50. This Court clarified Defendant’s

position that Plaintiff “committed a breach of contract in three main respects: (1) by

installing different equipment than was originally called for (such as the water

heaters); (2) by charging a higher price than was originally called for; and (3) by

performing substandard work, such as on the re-piping and insulation projects” (the

“workmanship claim”). Id. Plaintiff argued that “in order to bring a proper claim for

failure to construct in a workmanlike manner, [Defendant] must put on expert

testimony to establish the relevant standard of care.” Id. at 332, 869 S.E.2d at 50.

This Court agreed with Plaintiff, stating, “at least some expert evidence must be

                                         -4-
                  DAN KING PLUMBING HEATING & AIR, LLC V. HARRISON

                                     Opinion of the Court

presented to sustain a claim such as this.” Id. at 332, 869 S.E.2d at 51. This Court

noted that at trial, “Defendant did not offer any expert testimony to demonstrate that

the plumbing work was not performed in a workmanlike manner. Instead, Defendant

offered his own lay-testimony” which this Court held was inadequate as a matter of

law to prove Defendant’s workmanship claim.                 Id. at 335, 869 S.E.2d at 52.

Accordingly, this Court stated, “We reverse and remand for a new trial on this claim.”

Id. (Emphasis added). As for Defendant’s two other breach of contract claims, this

Court held, “sufficient evidence was presented to allow these claims to proceed to the

jury,” and therefore, “the trial court did not err in refusing to grant a directed verdict

on Defendant’s remaining breach of contract claims.” Id. Specifically, this Court

“remand[ed] for a new trial on Defendant’s claim for failure to perform in a

workmanlike manner under a construction or building contract.” Id. at 331, 869

S.E.2d at 50.

      Subsequent to the filing of this Court’s opinion in Dan King Plumbing I, and

with the trial court having taken no further action on remand, Plaintiff filed a “motion

to amend judgment to conform to appealate [sic] opinion including motion for a new

trial” on 21 October 2022. In it, Plaintiff requested:

                [F]urther findings of fact [to] be added to the Judgment in
                this matter in compliance with . . . the Opinion or other
                corrective action[,] . . . entry of directed verdict against
                Defendant’s breach of contract claim as provided in . . . the
                Opinion and order a new trial on the breach of contract
                claim which was not divided out as separate an[d]
                independent from the breach relate to workmanship, or

                                            -5-
               DAN KING PLUMBING HEATING & AIR, LLC V. HARRISON

                                   Opinion of the Court

             otherwise resolve outstanding issues in this case.

On 13 December 2022, Judge Havelka held a hearing on the motion. During that

hearing, she discussed her interpretation of this Court’s ruling in Dan King Plumbing

I:

             I assure you, the only thing I need to redo on the unfair and
             deceptive is rewrite the facts that needed to be in there the
             first go-round[.]

             ...

             My fault that I didn’t have enough facts there for the unfair
             and deceptive. But I assure you, I have no – I’m so familiar
             with this case.

             ...

             And yes, I agree that there is no other option but to try the
             workmanship claim on the breach of contract. I’m not
             changing my mind on the unfair and deceptive.

             I think what the Court of Appeals did is basically nudge
             me, and say, judge, you knew better than to sign that order.
             You needed more facts. And that’s exactly what I intend on
             doing.

However, Judge Havelka did not prepare or file a written order on Plaintiff’s “motion

to amend judgment,” and the matter was assigned to Judge Matt Newton (the “trial

court”), who held a new hearing on 1 March 2023 on Plaintiff’s motion. During that

hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel argued, “Regarding the issue of findings of fact [pertaining

to the UDTP duplicate warranties claim], the Court of Appeals specifically stated add

findings of fact, it did not state have a new trial.” The trial court disagreed with

                                          -6-
              DAN KING PLUMBING HEATING & AIR, LLC V. HARRISON

                                 Opinion of the Court

Plaintiff’s counsel’s interpretation of this Court’s ruling in Dan King Plumbing I,

stating:

            So I think that we patently disagree on our interpretation
            of the Court of Appeals’ opinion inasmuch as the issue
            pertaining unfair and deceptive trade practices and more
            particularly the reliance element to establish an unfair and
            deceptive trade practice claim for duplicate warranty here.
            I don’t understand why they would -- the Court of Appeals
            would ask so if not for a change in ruling, and to remand
            for findings or fact via a jury trial.

            I don’t understand why it would be remanded in the way it
            was and why they would request -- specifically request
            more testimony. Inasmuch as the testimony that was
            requested, they referenced evidence needing to be
            presented pertaining to whether the existence of HVAC
            manufacturer warranties are considered common
            knowledge, regarding -- so evidence regarding how
            Defendant ultimately came to discover the existence of
            manufacturer’s warranties; evidence of whether it was
            common practice in the HVAC industry to sell parts and
            warranties for products that were already covered by a
            manufacturer warranty. And also included other examples
            of relevant evidence such as warranty extending beyond a
            manufacturer’s warranty.

            So whether that occurs in this instance, whether the
            Plaintiff provided a warranty as a member of the local
            community and its relevance and so forth. I am at a loss to
            understand why there would be that particular or those
            particular instances of the need for additional testimony if
            it was something that was to be pursued outside the
            context -- at least on that particular issue -- outside the
            context of a de novo trial.

            At the same time, inasmuch as the directed verdict is
            concerned, it’s my understanding after reading the Court
            of Appeals’ decision that the reversible error was because
            no expert testimony was provided. And I think that that

                                        -7-
               DAN KING PLUMBING HEATING & AIR, LLC V. HARRISON

                                   Opinion of the Court

             was very clear. The desire for there to be expert testimony
             to be provided to make a more clearer or for the court to
             make a more clearer decision on whether a directed verdict
             is necessary or would be applicable here.

             And in the absence of that, this court isn’t prepared to
             proceed forward.

      Ultimately, in a written order filed 25 April 2023, the trial court denied

Plaintiff’s motion and ordered “(1) a new trial on the proximate cause/reliance issue

with respect to the duplicate warranties under the Defendant’s unfair and deceptive

trade practices cause of action; [and] (2) a new trial on the Defendant’s workmanship

breach of contract cause of action.” Plaintiff filed notice of appeal on 26 April 2023.

                                     II. Analysis

A. Appellate Jurisdiction

      Plaintiff appeals as of right pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7A-27(b)(3)(d), which

states that “appeal lies of right directly to the Court of Appeals . . . [f]rom any

interlocutory order or judgment of a superior court or district court in a civil action

or proceeding that . . . [g]rants or refuses a new trial.” Here, the trial court entered

an order on Plaintiff’s “motion to amend judgment to conform to [appellate] opinion

including motion for a new trial” in which it ordered a new trial. Accordingly, the

trial court’s order is appealable as of right under N.C. Gen. Stat. 7A-27(b)(3)(d).

B. Trial Court’s Action in Prior Judge’s Absence

      Plaintiff argues the trial court was not authorized to enter an order on his

motion because Judge Havelka’s term had ended, and the trial court did not follow

                                          -8-
               DAN KING PLUMBING HEATING & AIR, LLC V. HARRISON

                                      Opinion of the Court

the proper procedures to finish its work on the case.

      First, Plaintiff argues Judge Havelka left an order waiting to be signed and

should have been recalled and commissioned to complete her work on the case. N.C.

Gen. Stat. § 7A-53 provides:

             No retired judge of the district or superior court may
             become an emergency judge except upon the judge’s
             written application to the Governor certifying the judge’s
             desire and ability to serve as an emergency judge. If the
             Governor is satisfied that the applicant qualifies under G.S.
             7A-52(a) to become an emergency judge and the applicant
             is physically and mentally able to perform the official
             duties of an emergency judge, the Governor shall issue to
             the applicant a commission as an emergency judge of the
             court from which the applicant retired.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-53 (2023) (emphasis added). Second, Plaintiff argues the trial

court should have followed the procedures outlined in N.C. R. Civ. P. 63, including

tasking the chief judge of the district with handling the issues on remand. N.C. R.

Civ. P. 63 provides:

             If by reason of . . . expiration of term, . . . a judge before
             whom an action has been tried or a hearing has been held
             is unable to perform the duties to be performed by the court
             under these rules after a verdict is returned or a trial or
             hearing is otherwise concluded, then those duties,
             including entry of judgment, may be performed:

             ...

                       (2) In actions in the district court, by the chief judge
                       of the district, or if the chief judge is disabled, by any
                       judge of the district court designated by the Director
                       of the Administrative Office of the Courts.

                                              -9-
               DAN KING PLUMBING HEATING & AIR, LLC V. HARRISON

                                   Opinion of the Court

             If the substituted judge is satisfied that he or she cannot
             perform those duties because the judge did not preside at
             the trial or hearing or for any other reason, the judge may,
             in the judge’s discretion, grant a new trial or hearing.

      Here, Plaintiff provides no argument or evidence regarding whether Judge

Havelka would have qualified pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-52(a) to be appointed

as an emergency judge or that the Governor would have appointed her.              Most

importantly, there is no evidence in the Record that Judge Havelka prepared an order

that was ready to be signed. She held a hearing on Plaintiff’s motion which requested

that she act pursuant to this Court’s opinion in Dan King Plumbing I. During that

hearing, she said how she would rule on the motion, but she did not enter an order.

      “A judgment is ‘entered’ when it is ‘reduced to writing, signed by the judge, and

filed with the clerk of court.’ An announcement of judgment in open court constitutes

the rendition of judgment, not its entry.” West v. Marko, 130 N.C. App. 751, 755, 504

S.E.2d 571, 573–74 (1998) (quoting N.C. R. App. P. 58). “[A]n oral ruling announced

in open court is ‘not enforceable until it is entered.’ ” In re Thompson, 232 N.C. App.

224, 227, 754 S.E.2d 168, 171 (2014) (quoting West, 130 N.C. App. at 756, 504 S.E.2d

at 574). There is no evidence Judge Havelka entered an order or that she drafted an

order and left it for the chief district court judge to sign after her term ended. Thus,

the trial court was entitled to exercise its discretion and hold a new hearing on the

unresolved motion and enter its own ruling on the matter.

C. The Trial Court’s Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Judgment

                                          - 10 -
                DAN KING PLUMBING HEATING & AIR, LLC V. HARRISON

                                   Opinion of the Court

      Plaintiff next argues the trial court erred in granting a new trial on the

duplicate warranties claim because this Court in Dan King Plumbing I merely

remanded the issue for “further fact-finding on the issue of Defendant’s reasonable

diligence in discovering the existence and coverage of the duplicate warranties.” Dan

King Plumbing I, 281 N.C. App. at 327, 869 S.E.2d at 47. Plaintiff also argues the

trial court erred in granting a new trial on Defendant’s workmanship claim because

Defendant’s breach of contract claim was not separated into distinct verdicts or

theories but rather combined as one question on the verdict sheet.

      Regarding matters “left to the discretion of the trial court,” our Supreme Court

has stated:

              [A]ppellate review is limited to a determination of whether
              there was a clear abuse of discretion. A trial court may be
              reversed for abuse of discretion only upon a showing that
              its actions are manifestly unsupported by reason. A ruling
              committed to a trial court’s discretion is to be accorded
              great deference and will be upset only upon a showing that
              it was so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of
              a reasoned decision.

White v. White, 312 N.C. 770, 777, 324 S.E.2d 829, 833 (1985) (citations omitted).

      First, we address the trial court’s grant of a new trial on the duplicate

warranties claim. Plaintiff argues the trial court merely should have made or added

findings of fact to support Judge Havelka’s original determination that the jury’s

findings regarding Defendant’s duplicate warranties claim did not amount to UDTP

as a matter of law. Specifically, Plaintiff argues this Court’s order on remand for

                                          - 11 -
               DAN KING PLUMBING HEATING & AIR, LLC V. HARRISON

                                   Opinion of the Court

“further fact-finding on the issue of Defendant’s reasonable diligence” was a directive

to the trial court to make further findings of fact.

      “Whether a trade practice is unfair or deceptive usually depends upon the facts

of each case and the impact the practice has on the marketplace. Based upon the

jury’s findings of fact, the court must determine as a matter of law whether a

defendant’s conduct violates this section.” United Lab'ys, Inc. v. Kuykendall, 102 N.C.

App. 484, 4991, 403 S.E.2d 104, 109 (1991).

      Here, the trial court did what is directed by Kuykendall. The jury reached its

verdict, making findings of fact relevant to Defendant’s UDTP claims. The trial court,

equipped with the jury’s resolution of the facts, found:

             It is decreed that the acts Plaintiff committed as
             enumerated in Verdict Issue #8, Issue #9, Issue #10, and
             Issue #11 do not, as a matter of law, constitute unfair or
             deceptive trade practices or acts, and therefore no
             Judgment is entered in accordance with the Jury’s Verdict
             for violations of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 by Plaintiff.

(Capitalization modified for ease of reading).            In reviewing Judge Havelka’s

judgment, and specifically, the issue of whether Defendant’s reliance on Plaintiff’s

misrepresentation was reasonable, this Court stated, “we do not have the benefit of

any jury findings on this issue.” Dan King Plumbing I, 281 N.C. App. at 326, 869

S.E.2d at 47. This Court then noted that “[d]uring trial, no evidence was presented

regarding” various issues of fact relevant to whether Defendant’s reliance was

reasonable. Id. at 327, 869 S.E.2d at 47. Therefore, the trial court could not have

                                          - 12 -
               DAN KING PLUMBING HEATING & AIR, LLC V. HARRISON

                                  Opinion of the Court

made the factual findings which this Court deemed essential to Defendant’s duplicate

warranties claim. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering

a new trial on the “reliance issue with respect to the duplicate warranties” claim.

      Second, we address the trial court’s grant of a new trial on Defendant’s

workmanship claim.      Plaintiff argues the “Court of Appeals made clear that

[Plaintiff’s] motion for directed verdict should have been granted regarding

[Defendant’s] workmanship claim.”

      Plaintiff’s interpretation of this Court’s opinion in Dan King Plumbing I is the

opposite of what this Court held. This Court specifically stated, “We reverse and

remand for a new trial on this claim,” referring to “Defendant’s claim for failure to

perform in a workmanlike manner under a construction or building contract.” Id. at

331, 335, 869 S.E.2d at 50, 52. Immediately thereafter, this Court stated:

             “As for Defendant’s remaining breach of contract claims—
             failure to provide the correct water heater called for in the
             contract, and charging a higher price than called for—we
             conclude sufficient evidence was presented to allow these
             claims to proceed to the jury. . . . We accordingly hold that
             the trial court did not err in refusing to grant a directed
             verdict on Defendant’s remaining breach of contract
             claims.

Id. at 335, 869 S.E.2d at 52.

      “A court granting a new trial may in its discretion grant a partial new trial on

one issue rather than a new trial on all issues.” Myers v. Catoe Const. Co., 80 N.C.

App. 692, 696, 343 S.E.2d 281, 283 (1986). Accordingly, the trial court complied with

                                         - 13 -
               DAN KING PLUMBING HEATING & AIR, LLC V. HARRISON

                                  Opinion of the Court

this Court’s order on remand as to Defendant’s breach of contract claim and did not

abuse its discretion in ordering a new trial as to one particular issue or theory under

the claim.

                                  III. Conclusion

      For the foregoing reasons, we conclude the trial court did not err by holding a

new hearing and entering an order on Plaintiff’s motion to amend judgment to

conform to this Court’s prior opinion in the absence of the original judge presiding

over this matter. We further conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in

granting a new trial on the proximate cause/reliance issue with respect to the

duplicate warranties under the Defendant’s UDTP cause of action and Defendant’s

workmanship breach of contract cause of action.

      AFFIRMED.

      Judges TYSON and ZACHARY concur.

                                         - 14 -