The march towards paperless courts continues in North Carolina. The latest step is the elimination by the Court of Appeals of paper copies of oral argument calendars.
You remember those. They came on yellow paper and listed all the cases to be heard during a particular week and the panels hearing them. The calendars also
Judge Albert Diaz of the North Carolina Business Court was nominated today by President Obama to serve on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Senators Kay Hagan and Richard Burr both issued glowing statements about Judge Diaz and North Carolina Court of Appeals Judge Jim Wynn, who was also nominated for the federal appellate court.
There were three decisions yesterday from the Court of Appeals worth a quick mention for the business litigator (and the baseball fan).
First, Fischer Investment Capital, Inc. v. Catawba Development Corp. is a piercing the corporate veil case. And not only that, a reverse piercing the corporate veil case. In a reverse piercing case
If you are thinking of designating a case to the Business Court because the Complaint raises allegations that the corporate veil should be pierced, stop. Those types of allegations, without more, aren’t enough to invoke the mandatory jurisdiction of the Court.
There was a short order on that subject yesterday in CCE Development Corp. v.
There were ten new cases designated to the Business Court during October 2009. They include two lawsuits against former officers and directors of Wachovia regarding the collapse of Wachovia (Browne and Harris).
Abraham v. Jauregui (Onslow)(Jolly): fraud claims by 77 plaintiffs involving coastal real estate developments.
Blackburn v. L.E. Wooten & Company (Wake)(Jolly):
I had an out of state lawyer call me, concerned, a few weeks ago. He was defending a client in his home state in a case in which the plaintiff’s counsel had obtained commissions to take depositions in North Carolina. The depositions were scheduled to begin in just a few days, and he was concerned
Here are a few pictures of the new North Carolina Business Court in Raleigh, thanks to Judge Jolly and his staff giving me a quick tour yesterday. The Court moved to the Campbell Law School’s new Raleigh building on October 1st.
You’ll see that there is a broad stretch of windows behind the Judge’s bench
Judge Albert Diaz of the North Carolina Business Court may be nominated by President Obama to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, according to the Charlotte Observer.
And speaking of Judge Diaz, here’s an interview of him that I hadn’t seen before. The part about the pink hippopotamus is especially interesting.
Digital signatures and medieval law met today in the North Carolina Court of Appeals decision in Powell v. City of Newton, and the twenty-first century emerged the winner.
The Court enforced a settlement agreement involving a conveyance of land, even though no agreement reflecting the transaction had been signed as required by the Statute of Frauds. It relied, in part, on emails between counsel reflecting the settlement and circulating the necessary deed. It held that these satisfied the signature requirement, relying on North Carolina’s Uniform Electronic Transactions Act.
The case arose from the settlement by the parties of their lawsuit in open court, during trial. The transcript reflected Plaintiff’s agreement to convey property to the Defendant as a part of the settlement. A settlement agreement was circulated by email between the lawyers for the parties after that, but Plaintiff refused to sign.
The Electronic Signature Of Plaintiff’s Counsel Satisfied The Statute Of Frauds
Plaintiff based his refusal to follow through on the Statute of Frauds, which requires an agreement to convey land to be in writing, and "signed by the party to be charged." The trial court ordered Plaintiff to sign the settlement papers, and the Court of Appeals majority affirmed. It held that there had been "total compliance" with the Statute of Frauds. It based its decision, in part, on North Carolina’s Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. §66-311 et seq). As far as I know, this is the first mention of that statute by the Court of Appeals.
Judge Jackson, writing for the majority, said:
We note that this was not some barroom conversation between drunken neighbors, agreed to in jest, and written on a random scrap of paper. See Lucy v. Zehmer, 84 S.E.2d 516 (1954). This was an agreement among four parties represented by counsel, in a court of law, supervised by the presiding judge, who inquired of each party whether the terms were agreeable. The party to be charged — plaintiff — confirmed, ‘Yes, that’s my agreement.’
The Court observed that emails had then passed back and forth between counsel regarding the settlement, including drafts of a settlement agreement and a deed. This led to the Court’s first impression reliance on the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act. The Court said:
Pursuant to that Act, plaintiff’s counsel affixed his electronic signature to emails concerning the transaction. . . . When the hearing transcript, draft agreement, draft quitclaim deed, and associated emails are read together, as permitted by the statute of frauds, the settlement agreement that plaintiff was ordered to execute is in total compliance with the statute of frauds.
Other Grounds
The majority also provided other grounds for its decision, including the doctrine of judicial estoppel and a discussion whether the Statute of Frauds should apply at all to court announced settlements.Continue Reading North Carolina Court Of Appeals Rules That Electronic Signature Satisfied The Statute Of Frauds
When lawyers are arguing over whether documents were properly withheld from production on the basis of attorney-client privilege, one side or the other will often say "let’s have the Judge do an in camera review." (Translation for nonlawyers reading this blog: let’s drop all these documents on the Judge and let him or her decide).