North Carolina Archives - The National Law Forum

Supreme Court Upholds State Courts’ Power of Judicial Review Over Election Matters

On June 27, 2023, the United States Supreme Court upheld a decision by North Carolina’s highest court holding that the North Carolina legislature went too far in gerrymandering voting district maps. The Court affirmed the authority of state courts to review the decisions of state legislatures on election matters, rejecting the “independent state legislature theory.” The theory, taken to its extreme, is that no branch of state government can question a state legislature’s decision regarding any federal election. The ruling is an encouraging sign for states like Arizona, Illinois, and Michigan, where independent redistricting commissions have created, or are creating, new maps intended to represent non-partisan, or less partisan, boundary drawing and citizen-driven ballot initiatives to protect voters’ rights.

The plaintiffs in Moore v. Harper, 600 U.S. ___ (2023), were groups and individuals challenging North Carolina’s 2021 congressional districting map, which they viewed as unacceptable gerrymandering, created to favor Republican candidates. The legislative defendants asserted that in creating the new map, they had exercised the authority established by the “Elections Clause” in Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution that provides that state legislatures shall prescribe, “the Times, Places and Manner of” federal elections. Although North Carolina judges had found the new map to be “a partisan outlier intentionally and carefully designed to maximize Republican advantage in North Carolina’s Congressional delegation,” the legislative defendants argued the map was beyond the reach of judicial review. The Supreme Court had to decide whether “the Elections Clause insulates state legislatures from review by state courts for compliance with state law.” Moore, slip opinion at p 11.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts began the analysis by citing our country’s long-standing legal tradition of judicial review of the constitutionality of legislative acts. The majority opinion noted the 1787 decision in Bayard v Singleton, where the North Carolina Supreme Court found a law banning British loyalists from challenging property seizures was unconstitutional. The opinion goes on to review many decades of decisions where courts have considered the “interplay between state constitutional provisions and a state legislature’s exercise of authority under the Elections Clause.” Moore, slip opinion at p 15.

Looking at the other side of the case, the Court examined the legislative defendants’ arguments about the impact of the Election Clause. Rejecting Justice Clarence Thomas’s dissent, Roberts addressed the concept known as “independent state legislature theory” which contends that, “because the Federal Constitution gives state legislatures the power to regulate congressional elections, only [the Federal] Constitution can restrain the exercise of that power.” Id at 18. The historical references supporting this theory are debunked in the Moore decision, and many commentators have stated the decision in Moore slams the door on the extreme view that state legislative acts around federal elections are not subject to review by state courts.

The Moore decision, however, refers to a need to balance competing interests: “Although we conclude that the Elections Clause does not exempt state legislatures from the ordinary constraints imposed by state law, state courts do not have free rein.” Moore, slip opinion at p 26. The opinion goes on to note:

We do not adopt these or any other test by which we can measure state court interpretations of state law in cases implicating the Elections Clause… We hold only that state courts may not transgress the ordinary bounds of judicial review such that they arrogate to themselves the power vested in state legislatures to regulate federal elections.

Id. p 28-29. It therefore remains to be seen how difficult it will be to challenge state legislatures in their future attempts at partisan district drawing in state courts. Paying homage to the Supreme Court decision in Bush v Gore, it also leaves open the question of when federal courts may find that a state court has transgressed the “ordinary bounds of judicial review.” And, Moore leaves the Court’s holding in Rucho v Common Cause, 139 S Ct 2484 (2019) that partisan gerrymandering claims brought in federal court are not justiciable because they present a political question beyond their reach.

Nevertheless, taken in the context of other decisions reached this term, such as the Alabama districting case implicating the Voting Rights Act (Allen v Milligan), the recent decision in Moore gives comfort to many traditionalists who have been increasingly fearful of sudden and/or extreme changes to norms in American jurisprudence.

Click Here for More Election Law News at the National Law Review.

Deed Warranties and Why They Should Matter To You

You’re negotiating to buy a piece of real estate and your attorney tells you that the seller is proposing to give you a “Special Warranty Deed” in exchange for all of the money you will pay.

Special Warranty Deed – that sounds nice, doesn’t it? But what does that term really mean?

In order to appreciate what a Special Warranty Deed will mean to you as a buyer, it will help to know a little about the different types of deeds commonly used in North Carolina. The three most common types of deeds are:

General Warranty Deeds;
Limited Warranty Deeds; and,
Non-Warranty Deeds.

General Warranty Deeds

In a General Warranty Deed, the seller usually gives four warranties regarding the land to the buyer. The seller warrants to the buyer that:

The seller has the right to convey the real estate.
The seller will defend the title to the real estate against the claims of all persons.
The seller is “seized of the fee” in the real estate. “Seized of the fee” basically means that the seller warrants that the seller owns all of the rights in the real estate except as specifically stated in the deed.
There are no encumbrances against the real estate that are not listed in the deed. An encumbrance could be a simple (even beneficial) easement that allows the power company to install a power line across the property or a multi-million dollar judgment lien against the property. An encumbrance could be just about anything you might imagine that impacts (usually negatively) the use or value of the property, including restrictive (sometimes called “protective”) covenants that control how the real estate may be used.

Limited Warranty Deeds

However, in a Limited Warranty Deed, the seller usually gives only two warranties. The seller usually warrants to the buyer that:

The seller personally has not done anything to the title that the seller received. This is a much more limited warranty than the broad warranty found in a General Warranty Deed. As explained above, in a General Warranty Deed the seller warrants that the seller not only owns the property, but also has all of the rights in the property except as specifically stated in the deed.
The seller will defend the title to the property against claims based on the prior actions of the seller, but no one else. This also is a much more restrictive warranty than that found in the General Warranty Deed. As noted above, in a General Warranty Deed the seller warrants that the seller will defend the title against the claims from all parties except as specifically stated in the deed.

Limited Warranty Deeds go by various names, including “Special Warranty Deeds.” Sometimes Limited Warranty Deeds are named after the grantor, such as a “Trustee’s Deed” or an “Executor’s Deed,” but they all share the same characteristic in that they warrant only against the grantor’s own acts.

Non-Warranty Deeds

As one might imagine, the seller gives no warranties in a Non-Warranty Deed. A Non-Warranty Deed is sometimes called a “Quitclaim Deed.” Although lawyers quibble over whether there is a difference between a Non-Warranty Deed (which actually purports to convey something) and a Quitclaim Deed (which only releases any claims the grantor has in the land), they all share the same characteristic that they contain no warranty, even against the grantor’s own acts. In a Non‑Warranty or Quitclaim Deed, the seller merely is giving the buyer whatever rights, if any, that the seller has in the property and the seller makes no warranties of any nature about the seller’s rights in the property.

But What About The Special Warranty Deed?

A Special Warranty Deed is just a Limited Warranty Deed with an appealing name.

But what does it matter if you get a Limited or Special Warranty Deed when you buy a piece of property as opposed to another type of deed? As long as no title problems come up, it probably will not make any difference whether the seller gives you a General Warranty Deed, a Limited Warranty Deed, or a Non-Warranty Deed. However, if a title problem should arise, the deed warranties may make a big difference to you.

Let’s take a quick look at what would occur under the different deed warranties when a simple title problem arises. Let’s assume that you purchased your office building in 2021 from Sam Seller. Being familiar with the area and Sam Seller, you know that Sam purchased the building from the developer in 2020. You also know that the developer went out of business at the end of 2020. When you purchased the property in 2021, everything went smoothly. Everything was still going well until this past weekend when you received a notice from the county tax office indicating that the 2018 property tax bill on your office building had not been paid and the county has a lien on your property for several thousands of dollars. Yikes! As you scramble to locate your purchase file, let’s consider how the different deed warranties could affect your attitude once you actually find your file.

If you had received a General Warranty Deed from Sam Seller, then Sam would have warranted to you that there were no encumbrances against the property that were not listed in the deed. So unless the deed specifically indicated that the property was conveyed to you “subject to” the 2018 unpaid taxes, you should be able to sleep restfully knowing that Sam owes you the money for the unpaid taxes.

If you had received a Limited or Special Warranty Deed though, your sleep will not be as restful. In a Limited Warranty Deed, Sam would have warranted simply that he had not done anything to encumber or otherwise harm the title to the property while he owned the property. Unfortunately, Sam Seller did not own the property in 2018 when the 2018 taxes became a lien on the property or in January 2019 when they became past due. As you will recall, Sam bought the property in 2020. Consequently, the warranties found in a Limited Warranty Deed from Sam would not cover the unpaid 2018 taxes, and Sam would not be liable to you for the unpaid taxes.

Of course, if you had received a Non-Warranty or Quitclaim Deed from Sam Seller, then Sam also would not be liable to you for the unpaid taxes. As mentioned above, under a Non‑Warranty or Quitclaim Deed, Sam would not have warranted anything to you about the property. You simply would have received whatever rights (if any) that Sam had in the property at that time, and Sam’s rights were subject to the lien of the 2018 taxes.

What To Do If Offered A Special Warranty Deed

So, how do you protect yourself from issues that may arise when you will receive a Special Warranty Deed? Here are three things to do the next time you decide to buy property:

Regardless of the type of deed to be given at closing, get your attorney involved in the transaction before you sign a contract. Even if the contract provides for a General Warranty Deed, other language in the contract could reduce the general warranties. For example, contract language that indicates the property will be conveyed by a General Warranty Deed “subject to all matters of record” sounds reasonable, but the “subject to” language essentially negates the general warranties because most matters encumbering title to the property will be “of record.”
Have your attorney conduct a title examination on the property to discover any encumbrances or title problems before you purchase the property. Even if there are no title problems, this is where your attorney will discover those “little” things that could become big problems if you did not know about them prior to purchasing the property. For example, this is where your attorney would discover that the large open area behind the office building is subject to an easement in favor of the owner of the adjoining property that would prevent you from expanding the building into that area.
Have your attorney obtain title insurance for you. Title insurance will give you additional protection from unknown title risks that could raise their ugly heads in the future. Although title insurance does not guarantee that you will not have a title problem, it does provide insurance to help pay to correct the problem or to compensate you if the problem cannot be corrected.

Conclusion

Understanding deed warranties will help you to better protect yourself from title problems and possible litigation in the future. Special and Limited Warranty Deeds really aren’t that special and might not grant you the protections you think. Even still, other deeds may not contain any protection for a buyer at all.

For more Real Estate Legal News, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Estate Planning Considerations That Apply to Nearly Everyone

This article contains core information about the vital estate planning measures that almost all North Carolinians should have in place.

Why You Need an Estate Plan

Estate planning is not just for affluent individuals. While good estate planning can lead to desirable financial outcomes under the right circumstances, estate planning in its most basic form involves implementing the legal steps and directives that are necessary to ensure that your health and your assets are managed properly in the event of incapacity and death.

Everyone should consider:

Do you want to make sure that your family has the legal authority to direct and take part in your medical care if you become ill?
Do you care whether your assets will pass to your spouse, children, or other beneficiaries after your death?
Do you want to avoid a costly and uncertain court proceeding if you, your spouse, or your adult child becomes mentally incapacitated?
Do you have minor children or grandchildren, and specific desires about how they would be cared for in the event of your death?
Do you care about your finances and affairs becoming part of the public record when you die?

If your answer to any of the these questions is “yes,” then you likely need an estate plan.

Foundational Estate Planning Documentation

The following documents are the foundation of any good estate plan.

Last Will and Testament. A simple Will directs the disposition of a person’s assets and names someone to handle final affairs, in the event of death. In the absence of a Last Will and Testament, the disposition of your assets may be controlled by state law, and the result may be much different from what you intended.
Revocable Trust. A revocable trust can help ensure that the management and disposition of your assets is more private and efficient during your lifetime and at death.
Durable Power of Attorney. A durable power of attorney typically names a spouse, adult child, or other individual(s) of your choosing to step in and handle your financial and legal affairs when you are unable due to incapacity or absence.
Health Care Power of Attorney. A health care power of attorney is a document that nominates a trusted person (usually a family member) to make health care decisions in the event of your incapacity. Without this document, decisions about your medical treatment may be made by the attending physician or might involve petitioning the court for a guardianship – an expensive and cumbersome process.
Living Will. A living will addresses medical decisions and directives related to end-of-life care.
HIPAA Authorization. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) protects an adult’s private medical information from being released to third parties without the patient’s consent. Without a valid HIPAA authorization on file, a doctor or medical provider legally cannot, and frequently will not, discuss the patient’s medical information with family members.

Ownership and Beneficiary Designations

An essential component to planning for death involves reviewing the way that your assets and accounts are structured. Asset ownership and account-specific beneficiary designations can supersede and undermine even the most carefully-drafted estate planning documentation. Unfortunately, these aspects are often overlooked, and unintended consequences ensue. Having the advice of an attorney with significant experience in estate planning and administration is the best way to ensure that your assets and your estate plan will work hand in hand.

Changes in Circumstances

If you already have an estate plan in place, that’s great. But in the vast majority of cases, an estate plan will need to be updated over the course of a person’s life. If your estate plan no longer addresses your needs or accurately expresses your wishes, it’s time for an update.

The following are common reasons for updating one’s plan:

Children grow up and become able to manage a parent’s healthcare and estate matters.
Changes in financial circumstances.
Relocation to a new state.
Separation, divorce, or remarriage.
Changes to applicable law.
Birth, death, or marriage of a beneficiary.

Article By Peter B. von Stein of Ward and Smith, P.A.

For more estates and trusts legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

“My Lawyer Made Me Do It” is Not an Absolute Defense to Bankruptcy Court Sanctions

Last year, we offered a lesson and a moral from a North Carolina district court decision reversing a $115,000 sanctions order by a North Carolina bankruptcy court.

The lesson from the case was that the bankruptcy court cannot sanction a creditor if there is an objectively reasonable basis for concluding that the creditor’s conduct is lawful.

The moral was that a creditor can avoid the time, expense, and risk associated with litigating contempt and sanctions issues by taking basic steps to ensure that confirmed Chapter 11 plans are clear and precise. The moral is even more glaring now because a recent decision from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reveals that the parties continue to fight in court over the easily-avoidable sanctions order. The decision also clarifies when and why a bankruptcy court can sanction a creditor.

Factual Background

In 2009, the Beckharts filed Chapter 11. At the time, they were almost a year behind on a loan secured by the property at Kure Beach. The loan servicer objected to planning confirmation because it did not specify how post-petition mortgage payments would be applied to principal and interest. The bankruptcy court confirmed the plan without clarifying the issue, but the servicer did not ask the court to reconsider its order, nor did it appeal.

The Beckharts paid for five years. Shellpoint acquired the loan from the original servicer and treated it as in default based on unpaid accrued arrearages. Periodically, Shellpoint sent default letters to the Beckharts, who disputed the default. Counsel for Shellpoint advised that the confirmation order had not changed the loan contract terms and that the loan remained in default. The matter escalated with the Beckharts filing complaints with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Shellpoint commenced foreclosure, then represented to the Beckharts that it was ceasing foreclosure, but then posted a foreclosure hearing notice on the Beckharts’ door (allegedly due to error).

Litigation

In January 2020, the Beckharts moved the bankruptcy court to find Shellpoint in contempt and award them monetary sanctions. The court held a hearing in June and, in September 2020, found Shellpoint in contempt. The court tagged Shellpoint with $115,000 in sanctions for lost wages, “loss of a fresh start,” attorney’s fees, and travel expenses.

Bankruptcy courts have the power to hold a party in civil contempt and to impose sanctions for violation of a confirmed plan. The test for liability is based on a recent United States Supreme Court decision — Taggart v. Lorenzen. The Taggart test prohibits sanctions if there was an “objectively reasonable basis for concluding that the creditor’s conduct might be lawful.” There can be contempt for violating the discharge injunction only “if there is no fair ground of doubt as to whether the order barred the creditor’s conduct.”

In reversing the bankruptcy court, the district court noted that the plan and confirmation order did not state how much the debtors would owe on confirmation, did not say how the $23,000 in arrears would be paid, and did not set the amount of the first payment. Confusingly, the confirmation order also said that the original loan terms would remain in effect, except as modified. Finally, the district court pointed out that Shellpoint was repeatedly advised by counsel that their behavior was authorized, and reliance on the advice of outside counsel is a sufficient defense to civil sanctions. Based on all these facts, the district court found that Shellpoint acted in good faith and interpreted the confirmation order in a manner consistent with the contractual terms of the loan, and that was objectively reasonable.

Taggart was a Chapter 7 case involving a discharge violation, but the Fourth Circuit held that the “no fair ground of doubt” test applied broadly in bankruptcy – including in Chapter 11 cases.

But the Fourth Circuit disagreed with the district court’s decision to reverse the bankruptcy court because the creditor had requested and received legal advice from outside counsel. The Fourth Circuit held that advice of counsel is not an absolute defense in civil contempt. The Court suggested that, under the Taggart test, advice of counsel “may still be considered in appropriate circumstances as a relevant factor” and “a party’s reliance on guidance from outside counsel may be instructive, at least in part, when determining whether that party’s belief that she was complying with the order was objectively unreasonable.”

The Fourth Circuit held that both lower courts had made mistakes and sent the case back to the bankruptcy court to “reconsider the contempt motion under the correct legal standard, including any additional fact-finding that may be necessary.”

Creditors can take some comfort in the “no fair ground of doubt” test, which is more forgiving than a strict liability standard. But creditors can’t blame their lawyer for perilous conduct and expect the court to exonerate them.

But the most important takeaway hasn’t changed: Creditors should insist on clear and specific plan terms. After over two years of litigation, Shellpoint remains in peril of sanctions. All of this could have been avoided had the loan servicer insisted the plan specify how the Beckharts’ payments would be applied to satisfy the arrearage.

Article By Lance P. Martin of Ward and Smith, P.A.

For more bankruptcy legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

“Key Legislative Limits to Nuisance-Based Attacks on the Right to Farm Live on.”

The North Carolina Chamber of Commerce, through its “Ag Allies: Landscape-Shifting Legal Developments” webinar on August 18, 2021, featured North Carolina’s Right to Farm Act (the “Act”), and appropriately so, as it has been at the forefront of North Carolina law and politics over the past few years.

Agribusiness is the backbone of the North Carolina economy, accounting for 17.5 percent of total jobs and having a total estimated economic impact of over 95 billion dollars in 2019 alone. The evidence suggests that this impact has, despite recent challenges, only grown since then. However, the agricultural operations that make up this market have a unique impact on the land and on their neighbors as noise, odor, storage, and dangerous equipment and structures are all unavoidable parts of agriculture. These effects are compounded by the fact that many agricultural operations are located in rural areas in close proximity to residential zones. This mix has long resulted in tensions, and those tensions can come to a head in lawsuits for nuisance. “Nuisance” is a legal claim that allows for the recovery of damages for unreasonable interference with the use of one’s land.

This presented a particular problem for North Carolina agricultural operations, especially meat production. These and other agricultural operations were deemed too valuable to be left subject to nuisance actions without some protections, and the North Carolina General Assembly sought to help by passing the Act in 1979. Its stated objective was to decrease losses to the State of its agricultural and forestry resources by curtailing the situations in which agricultural and forestry operations could be deemed a nuisance. The Act featured prominently in the recent mass nuisance litigation brought by over 500 plaintiffs against Murphy-Brown/Smithfield and the threat that future litigation like it presented for the State’s agribusiness industry. Ultimately, the Act did not serve to protect the defendants from substantial jury verdicts, prompting the General Assembly to revisit and strengthen its protections.

The Act received boosts from the General Assembly through amendments in 2017 (capped recoverable damages to the fair market value of a plaintiff’s property) and in 2018 (narrowed who can bring a nuisance lawsuit against a farm and the time in which they can bring a nuisance suit). But these boosts were not without opposition. In 2019, three non-profit organizations filed suit challenging the 2017 and 2018 amendments. The organizations argued that the amendments, on their face, violated North Carolina’s Constitution. Facial constitutional challenges require proof that the law in question is unconstitutional in all of its applications. A court cannot strike down the law if there is any “reasonable ground” to uphold it. Finding the organizations had failed to state a claim, the trial court dismissed the organizations’ suit. After their challenge was dismissed, the organizations appealed their case to the North Carolina Court of Appeals. In upholding the trial court’s dismissal of the organizations’ suit, the Court of Appeals held that Plaintiffs’ had failed to state a legal claim and that the amendments in question do not violate North Carolina’s Constitution on their face.

Here are the highlights of the arguments presented in the appeal:

The organizations argued on appeal that the amendments violated private property rights under the Law of the Land Clause contained in the State’s Constitution, which prohibits a person from being deprived of life, liberty, or property except as allowed “by the law of the land.” The Court disagreed. It found the amendments to be reasonably necessary to promote a public benefit (through limiting nuisance claims against the State’s agricultural and forestry operations). It also determined that the amendments’ interference on property use rights to be reasonable.

In response to the organizations’ argument that the amendments exceeded the authority of the State’s police power, the Court pointed to North Carolina’s historied interest in preserving and promoting agricultural and agricultural-related industries and found the amendments to be within the scope of the State’s police power.

The organizations also argued that the amendments violated the fundamental right to enjoy property. In disposing of that argument, the Court noted the organizations had not alleged a taking by the government and reiterated its conclusions regarding the facial constitutionality of the amendments.

Another provision of the State’s Constitution at issue in the appeal was the prohibition on the General Assembly from enacting local, private, or special acts (as opposed to generally applicable laws) concerning the abatement of nuisances. The organizations took the position that the amendments provide private protections to the hog industry. The Court disagreed, noting that the amendments generally apply to the agricultural and forestry industries and are not limited to a particular subset of those industries or groups within them.

Finally, the organizations asserted that the 2017 amendment, which capped recoverable damages, violates the constitutional right to a trial by jury. In rejecting their position, the Court cited the General Assembly’s power to modify the State’s common law by statute to define what remedies are recognized by law. The Court then pointed to statutory caps on recoverable damages that the General Assembly had enacted for other civil torts.

In affirming the trial court’s dismissal of the organizations’ lawsuit, the Court delivered a “win” to the State’s agricultural and forestry industries by upholding the amendments’ limitations on nuisance claims. Only time will tell whether the win it delivered will stay on the books. The Court’s ruling was limited to considering the facial challenges the organizations had presented in attacking the amendments. The Court was not tasked with evaluating whether the amendments would withstand an-as applied constitutional challenge, and it remains to be seen how the Court would rule if asked to consider an as-applied challenge. Still, the ruling is an encouraging nod to the important role the agricultural and forestry industries play in North Carolina and the State’s interest in protecting those industries.

Article By Allen N. Trask, III and Amy H. Wooten with Ward and Smith, P.A.

For more about North Carolina law, visit the NLR North Carolina jurisdiction page.

How Outdoor Sports and Recreation Operations Can Legally Protect Themselves in a Post COVID-19 Environment

There is a world history of pandemics that, at one point or another, crippled civilizations or dynasties. In America’s more recent history, our country has experienced the Spanish Flu (1918 – 1920), the Asian Flu (1957 – 1958), and the H1N1 Swine Flu (2009 – 2010). Though the Swine Flu is in our society’s most recent memory, the current Coronavirus infection and death numbers have already surpassed the total Swine Flu infection and death numbers. The Coronavirus (COVID-19) has wreaked havoc on Americans and their interactions with each other because of the rapid rate at which the virus spreads. Businesses have been impacted due to governmental orders to temporarily close or greatly reduce their services. But with proper action, the spread of the virus will slow, the economy will rebound, and people will return to the extracurricular activities they enjoy.

As our country presses forward, the Coronavirus will change the way business owners conduct business – including operators in the outdoor sports and recreation business.

On May 5, 2020, North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper signed Executive Order No. 138 (the “Order”), which modifies Executive Order No. 121 (also known as The North Carolina “Stay at Home” Order). The Order signaled the beginning of Phase 1, effective 5:00 p.m. on May 8, 2020, and the gradual reopening of North Carolina. On May 20, 2020, Governor Cooper signed Executive Order No. 141, which outlines “Phase 2” of reopening North Carolina and will begin on May 22, 2020, at 5:00 p.m. (also known as the North Carolina “Safer at Home” Order). The Order removes the distinction between essential and non-essential businesses, which were defined in Executive Order No. 121, thus allowing many businesses originally deemed non-essential to reopen. Additionally, the Order explicitly provides that outdoor activities are allowed and that day camps and programs for children and teens are permitted to resume if they are able to adhere to certain guidelines and social distancing requirements. Phase 2 allows for overnight camps for children and teens to resume, also as long as requirements are met. As North Carolina moves through Phase 1 and into Phase 2, several state parks will reopen to the public. Phase 2 does not permit Mass Gatherings of more than ten people indoors or more than twenty-five people outdoors nor does it allow for indoor fitness facilities to reopen. Please click HERE for a summary of what Phase 2 allows and does not allow.

As outdoor sports and recreation businesses prepare to eventually reopen, business owners should evaluate their legal documents to determine if the business is adequately protected in the event of this continuing pandemic or another pandemic. Two items to consider are the contractual language in event contracts and liability waivers.

Update Contractual Language Regarding Event Cancellation or Postponement

Outdoor sports and recreation businesses that provide services such as race organization, adventure vacations, guided excursions, exhibition management, or outdoor recreation conference organization have been forced to cancel or postpone events if the event was scheduled to take place during one of the many state or local government orders to shut down.

Businesses that plan these events often expend costs associated with the event as the planning progresses. In light of the Coronavirus, most businesses should revise their contractual language involving event production, especially in cases where there is a “no refund” policy.

If the current contractual language does not address governmental orders related to government-ordered shutdowns, pandemics, or does not contain a force majeure provision, then the contract likely should be revised to include such provisions.

The contractual language that addresses pandemics and governmental orders to shut down can help limit the business’s financial liability in the event of event cancellation or postponement due to a future pandemic or governmental order to shut down.

Update Liability Waivers

Outdoor sports and recreational activities come with inherent risks for participants and sometimes even for event spectators. When a participant or spectator gets injured during the activity, there is potential liability exposure to the other participants, the event organizers, and the activity providers. Liability exposure is greatly reduced with a proper liability waiver signed by the participant or agreed to by the spectator before the activity begins.

There are several key components to an effective liability waiver. One such component is the assumption of risk provision. This provision identifies (1) the activity at hand, (2) the inherent risks associated with engaging in or observing such activity, and (3) that these risks cannot be eliminated no matter the level of care taken to avoid injury.

In light of the Coronavirus, outdoor sports and recreation business owners should examine the assumption of risk provision in their liability waivers. They should seek legal guidance in adding language to provide that participants are at risk of coming into contact with certain communicable diseases or viruses similar to COVID-19. The waiver should also be updated to reflect that participants agree to waive claims arising from injury, illness, or death associated with these assumed risks.

Many runners and tri-athletes are looking eagerly to the day when they will once again be allowed to sign up for and compete in races and events. Others are awaiting the return of guided white-water rafting trips, lazy days floating on a tube down a local river, or visiting an adventure center to challenge themselves on a ropes or zip line course. Owners of these outdoor sports and recreation operations should use this time to get their documents in order to protect themselves against potential future lost revenue or liability in the event of another pandemic or if a government order to shut down occurs.

ARTICLE BY Kristin D. Mitcham of Ward and Smith, P.A.

For more on the return of sports, see the National Law Review Entertainment, Art & Sports law section.

Agents Beware: Representation Agreement May Not Be Enforceable If It Violates State Sports Agent Laws

A North Carolina law designed to protect student-athletes may determine the enforceability of Prime Sports Marketing’s contract with former Duke University star Zion Williamson. While Williamson is preparing to become a member of the New Orleans Pelicans after his name is announced as the No. 1 selection in the 2019 NBA Draft, he is also preparing for a legal battle in a different court…the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.

Williamson has filed suit against the Florida-based company and its president, Gina Ford, to have the marketing contract he signed with Prime Sports declared null and void. After signing a five-year agreement with Prime Sports and an accompanying letter of authorization reaffirming his desire to have Gina Ford begin representing him as his Global Marketing Agent, Williamson changed his mind.

Williamson alleges the agreement was entered into in violation of North Carolina’s Uniform Athlete Agent Act (UAAA) and should be declared void.

In his complaint, Williamson alleges that Prime Sports and Gina Ford violated the specific provisions of the North Carolina law that forbids a person from acting as an agent in the state unless that person has previously registered with the North Carolina Secretary of State’s office. The law applies to any agency contract, including employment agreements and marketing agreements.

In addition, the law mandates any agent to follow a series of procedural requirements to protect student-athletes from unknowingly forfeiting their remaining NCAA eligibility. Any contract between a registered agent and a student-athlete must contain a specific, capitalized notice in boldface print cautioning the athlete of the rights he will be giving up by entering into the contract. Among the many required notices, the contract must state the following:

WARNING TO THE STUDENT-ATHLETE IF YOU SIGN THIS CONTRACT

YOU SHALL LOSE YOUR ELIGIBILITY TO COMPETE AS A STUDENT-ATHLETE IN YOUR SPORT;
YOU MAY CANCEL THIS CONTRACT WITHIN 14 DAYS AFTER SIGNING IT. CANCELLATION OF THIS CONTRACT SHALL NOT REINSTATE YOUR ELIGIBILITY.

The agreement Williamson signed with Prime Sports did not contain any of these required notices mandated by the North Carolina law.

Of particular significance will be a judicial determination as to whether Williamson remained a student-athlete when he signed the agreement with Prime Sports and still protected by the North Carolina law. Williamson declared himself eligible to be drafted by an NBA team on April 15, arguably ending his status as an NCAA-eligible athlete. He signed the agreement with Prime Sports on April 20, when he had arguably given up his amateur status and was no longer protected by the state law. While a student-athlete’s declaration for the draft was irreversible at one time, current NCAA bylaws allow a student-athlete to “test the waters” regarding potentially becoming draft-eligible and withdraw his name from consideration as late as May 29 without risking the loss of any remaining eligibility. Here, Williamson lost the option to exercise his rights pursuant to NCAA bylaws and return to Duke University when he signed the contract with Prime Sports.

As the federal court considers Williamson’s complaint and the anticipated defenses and potential counterclaims to be asserted by Prime Sports (which has alleged the potential for $100 million in damages in a pre-complaint letter to Williamson’s attorney), the significance of Gina Ford’s failure to register as an agent with the State of North Carolina before her initial meeting with Williamson could be of crucial importance in determining the enforceability of the agreement between Williamson and Prime Sports.

This post was written by Gregg E. Clifton at Jackson Lewis P.C.

Read more on Sports Law on the National Law Review Entertainment, Art & Sports page.

They Are Taking Our Common Area!

The power of eminent domain, also referred to as condemnation, refers to the power of the government or other quasi-governmental entity, such as a utility company, to take private property for a public purpose.

The law requires “just compensation” to be paid when a taking occurs. What happens, however, when the property taken is common area owned by a community association, property owners’ association (“POA”), or homeowners’ association (“HOA”) (collectively, “Association”)?

In a subdivision or planned community managed by an Association, the common area and elements are typically owned by the Association. However, the individual property owners have easement rights granting them the right to use the common area (for example, parks, playgrounds, swimming pools, tennis courts, streets and walkways, and other commonly shared property). An easement is a property right that, if taken, requires the payment of just compensation to the holder of the easement; in this case, the various lot owners in the planned community or subdivision. In the case of a condominium, the condominium unit owners actually own the common area in fee simple as tenants in common. This fee simple ownership, if taken, would normally require the payment of “just compensation” to the unit owners for the value of the property interest lost as a result of the taking.

The taking of common area and common elements can significantly impair the value of the lots, homes and units in a community. Picture, for example, a DOT taking where an elevated highway is built where the community’s swimming pool once stood. Are the lot and unit owners entitled to just compensation for the value of the common area taken and the damage done to their property values in a condemnation proceeding? The answer is “yes, no, and maybe.”

Uniform Planned Community Act/Uniform Condominium Act

In states such as North Carolina that have enacted legislation that substantially follows the Uniform Planned Community Act (“UPCA”) and the Uniform Condominium Act (“UCA”), the Association is granted the power and authority to act for all of the lot owners or unit owners in a condemnation or eminent domain case where common area is taken. The Acts provide that the portion of the just compensation award “attributable to the common elements taken” shall be paid to the Association. The Acts and the governing documents of the planned community or condominium dictate how the just compensation paid to the Association can be used or disbursed.

It would seem that, despite this law, a lot owner or unit owner whose property value has been substantially affected by the taking of common area should also be entitled to compensation for the reduced value of the lot or unit. In a case decided by the Supreme Court of Kansas, for example, the Kansas DOT took lots in a subdivision that were subject to Restrictive Covenants preventing the construction of anything but single-family homes on the subdivision lots. The Court held that the single-family home restriction was a “property right” of the remaining lot owners in the subdivision that was taken when a highway bridge was constructed on the taken lots. The Court sent the case back to the trial court with instructions to determine the damage that each lot owner had sustained as a result of the taking.

Fiduciary Duty

The officers and directors of an Association have a fiduciary duty to properly respond to and deal with a taking. The Association should take advantage of any opportunities that arise before the taking actually occurs for input into the nature and extent of the taking, including, in the case of roads or highways, their location and design. Typically, the condemning entity will have an appraisal done estimating the value of the property to be taken and the just compensation that should be paid to the property owner or, with common elements, the Association. Often times it will be incumbent upon the Association to retain its own appraiser to ensure that a fair price is paid. The condemning entity will certainly have legal counsel, and the Association would be wise to retain its own legal counsel to provide guidance through this process and to ensure that the Association is fulfilling its fiduciary duty.

Conclusion

The taking of a common area or common elements by a condemning entity can be a devastating and traumatic occurrence for an Association and its members. The Association needs to understand the process and deal with it appropriately. Having an attorney who is experienced in both the areas of community association law and eminent domain law will be essential.

This post was written by Ryal W. Tayloe and Allen N. Trask, III of Ward and Smith, P.A.

Key Implications of Fourth Circuit’s Denial of En Banc Review of Pro-Transgender Ruling

On May 31, 2016, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denied en banc review of an April decision permitting transgender students to use sex-segregated facilities that are consistent with their gender identity. The Fourth Circuit encompasses North Carolina; thus, the case G.G. v. Gloucester County Public School Board (“Gloucester County”), although it arose in Virginia, creates a conflict between federal law and North Carolina’s House Bill 2 (“HB2”), which requires transgender individuals to use public bathrooms that match the gender listed on their birth certificates. Although Gloucester County applies on its face to students and public schools, the decision impacts retailers who provide bathroom facilities to employees and customers and who must navigate conflicting laws regarding transgender protections. Of additional importance, plaintiffs in sex discrimination lawsuits will likely use the decision as support for the view that a person’s “sex” includes “gender identity.”

In Gloucester County, a sixteen-year-old transgender high school student who was born a biological female filed suit to use the boys’ restroom at school. G.G. and his mother contended that the school’s policy of providing separate restrooms and locker rooms based upon a student’s biological sex constituted sex discrimination under Title IX—the federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in federally funded educational programs and activities. On April 19, G.G. prevailed in a two-to-one decision of a three member panel of the Fourth Circuit, which deferred to the U.S. Department of Education’s interpretation that the reference to “sex” in Title IX includes “gender identity.”

Following the panel’s ruling, the school board asked the Fourth Circuit to rehear the case with the full panel of 15 active judges. On May 31, the en banc panel denied the school board’s request. Circuit Judge Paul V. Niemeyer, widely considered the most conservative member of the Fourth Circuit, filed the lone dissent, stating the issue “deserves an open road to the Supreme Court to seek the Court’s controlling construction of Title IX for national application.”

Regardless whether the case proceeds to the Supreme Court, the decision signifies the first time a federal appeals court has found that federal law protects the rights of transgender persons to use sex-segregated facilities that are consistent with their gender identity. Although decided under Title IX with regard to student rights, the decision may have ramifications in the area of employment law, inasmuch as Title VII, like Title IX, prohibits discrimination based on “sex.” Retailers and other employers should be alert to the issue and may expect that future litigants will seek to expand the Gloucester County ruling to Title VII and other sex discrimination claims.

Given the political and legal climate surrounding HB2 and related laws that affect the rights of transgender persons, we recommend that retailers proactively accommodate the needs of transgender workers rather than reactively respond to potential claims of discrimination. Retailers, particularly those operating in states with anti-discrimination laws that cover sexual orientation and gender identity, should implement a policy designed to foster workplace inclusion. In particular, retailers are encouraged to provide transgender employees access to bathrooms that correspond to their gender identity and, where possible, provide employees with additional options, including single-occupancy gender-neutral (unisex) facilities and use of multiple-occupant, gender-neutral restroom facilities with lockable single occupant stalls. Furthermore, retailers in the clothing industry with dressing/fitting rooms should accommodate their employees and patrons alike by permitting them to use the dressing/fitting room that corresponds to their gender identity. These recommendations apply equally to those retailers in North Carolina because, although HB2 remains in effect in that state, the law applies only to places of public accommodation, and, in any event, the Fourth Circuit’s recent decision signals that the controversial law may not withstand judicial scrutiny. In general, retailers should beware that engaging in discriminatory practices may have negative business as well as legal ramifications.

ARTICLE BY Nathaniel M. Glasser & Jonathan L. Shapiro of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

North Carolina Retailers Navigate Conflicting Laws Regarding Transgender Protections

On March 23, 2016, the North Carolina Legislature passed House Bill 2, the “Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act” (“HB2”), that overturned a Charlotte ordinance extending anti-discrimination protections to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (“LGBT”) individuals and allowing transgender persons to use the bathroom of their choice. Instead, HB2 requires individuals to use public bathrooms that match the gender listed on their birth certificates. A swift public outcry followed, with many celebrities denouncing the law and canceling appearances in North Carolina, companies threatening to boycott, and the American Civil Liberties Union filing a lawsuit challenging HB2 as unconstitutional and for violating federal law.

North Carolina officials have refused to disavow HB2 and, on May 9, filed a lawsuit against the federal government seeking a ruling that HB2 is not discriminatory. The Justice Department has countersued, alleging that HB2 violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII). Regardless of the ultimate outcome of these lawsuits, it is clear that discriminating against LGBT individuals has real consequences, from both a business and legal perspective. What should retailers know and, more importantly, do to survive in this current environment?

At a minimum, retailers should familiarize themselves with their state’s employment nondiscrimination laws (if any) that apply to private employers. Twenty states (including California, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York) and the District of Columbia have passed employment non-discrimination laws that prohibit discrimination by private employers based on both sexual orientation and gender identity. Two states (New Hampshire and Wisconsin) have such laws covering sexual orientation only. These laws protect LGBT persons from discrimination in hiring and in the workplace.

Retailers also are encouraged to review their municipality’s nondiscrimination laws and regulations, if any. For example, New York City law prohibits gender identity discrimination, and the New York City Commission on Human Rights recently announced guidance (“NYC Guidance”) that makes clear what constitutes gender identity and gender expression discrimination under the NYC Human Rights Law. The NYC Guidance warns employers and business owners that they may violate New York City law if they intentionally fail to use a transgender employee’s preferred name, pronoun, or title, or refuse to allow a transgender employee to use single-sex facilities, such as bathrooms or locker rooms, and participate in single-sex programs consistent with their gender identity.

Retailers also should know that the EEOC has aggressively pursued transgender discrimination claims on theories of sex stereotyping and gender nonconformity under Title VII, which bars employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of their sex. In cases involving government employees, the EEOC has held that: (i) an employer’s restriction on a transgender woman’s use of a common female restroom facility constituted illegal sex discrimination under Title VII,(ii) an employer’s intentional references to a transgender female as “he” may constitute sex-based discrimination and/or harassment, and (iii) a transgender employee stated a valid Title VII sex discrimination claim based on his allegation that his employer took over a year to correct his name in the company’s computer system.

The EEOC has taken further action against private companies. For example, it recently entered into a consent decree with a Minnesota financial services company for allegedly refusing to let a transgender employee use the women’s restroom and subjecting her to a hostile work environment. In another action, a Florida eye clinic paid $150,000 to settle an EEOC lawsuit that sought relief for an employee who was allegedly discriminated against when transitioning from male to female.

In light of this climate, retailers are encouraged to accommodate the needs of transgender workers proactively rather than reactively responding to potential claims of discrimination. Retailers, particularly those operating in states with anti-discrimination laws that cover sexual orientation and/or gender identity, should implement a policy designed to foster workplace inclusion. Retailers can avoid significant business and legal risk if they follow these two directives:

Call transgender employees by their preferred names, pronouns, and titles, and promptly update internal databases (pay accounts, training records, benefits documents, etc.) with this information upon an employee’s request. The NYC Guidance, for example, advises employers to use the employee’s preferred name regardless of whether the employee has legally changed his or her name “except in very limited circumstances where certain federal, state, or local laws require otherwise (e.g., for purposes of employment eligibility verification with the federal government).” This is a sound policy that retailers beyond New York City should consider following. In addition, employers may choose to offer new business cards and email aliases for their employees.
Provide transgender employees access to bathrooms that correspond to their gender identity. On May 3, the EEOC issued a “Fact Sheet” stating that the denial of equal access to a bathroom corresponding to an employee’s gender identity qualifies as sex discrimination prohibited under Title VII and that contrary state law is no defense. The Fact Sheet encourages employers to refer to the more comprehensive “Guide to Restroom Access for Transgender Workers,” which was issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) and offers model practices for restroom access for transgender employees. Like the EEOC, OSHA advises that “all employees should be permitted to use the facilities that correspond with their gender identity.” Where possible, employers should provide employees with additional options, including single-occupancy gender-neutral (unisex) facilities and use of multiple-occupant, gender-neutral restroom facilities with lockable single occupant stalls.

While the North Carolina Legislature has rolled back protections for the LGBT community, the media attention surrounding HB2 has been largely negative and has affected the businesses of companies operating in the state. Given the number of other states that have enacted laws expressly prohibiting sexual orientation and/or gender identity discrimination, the federal government’s enforcement position, and changing public opinion on the issue, retailers are on notice that such discrimination may have negative business or legal ramifications.

Article By Nathaniel M. Glasser & Jonathan L. Shapiro of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

Tag: North Carolina

Supreme Court Upholds State Courts’ Power of Judicial Review Over Election Matters

Like this: