The opinion
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute
controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with
the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. COA25-705
Filed 6 May 2026
Guilford County, No. 25CV006775-400
STAURUS JEFFERIES,
Plaintiff,
v.
TITLEMAX OF SOUTH CAROLINA, INC.,
Defendant.
Appeal by defendant from order and judgment entered 27 May 2025 by Judge
R. Stuart Albright in Guilford County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals
24 February 2026.
Brown, Faucher, Peraldo & Benson PLLC, by James R. Faucher, Drew Brown,
and Kevin Rust, for plaintiff-appellee.
Ellis & Winters LLP, by Andrew S. Chamberlin, and Venable LLP, by Abram
I. Moore, Nelson M. Hua, and Daniel J. Hayes, pro hac vice, for defendant-
appellant.
ZACHARY, Judge.
Defendant TitleMax of South Carolina, Inc., (“TitleMax”) appeals from the trial
court’s order denying vacatur and confirming an Arbitration Award and judgment
JEFFERIES V. TITLEMAX OF S. CAROLINA, INC.
Opinion of the Court
entered in favor of Plaintiff. On appeal, TitleMax raises two arguments: that the trial
court erred (1) “by denying vacatur and confirming the Award, which failed to draw
its essence from the South Carolina Loan Agreement” and (2) “by confirming the
Award based on reasons not stated in the Award.” After careful review, we affirm the
trial court’s order and judgment in favor of Plaintiff.
Plaintiff is a North Carolina resident who received a high-interest car title loan
from TitleMax. TitleMax loaned Plaintiff $5,020.00 at 80.10% interest per annum,
which was legal in South Carolina but prohibited by law in North Carolina. Plaintiff
traveled to a TitleMax store in South Carolina where she executed the loan contract.
TitleMax placed a lien on Plaintiff’s vehicle and recorded the lien with the North
Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles to perfect its security interest.
The Loan Agreement provided that most disputes would be resolved by a third-
party arbitrator following the JAMS arbitration rules and contained a “Governing
Law” provision specifying that “South Carolina law governs this Note, but the Federal
Arbitration Act governs the Waiver of Jury Trial and Arbitration Clause.”
On 31 August 2022, Plaintiff “brought claims against [TitleMax] for violations
of North Carolina’s Consumer Finance Act (N.C. Gen. Stat. [§] 53-164 [(2025)], et
seq.) and the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 75-1.1, et seq.), among other claims.” The action was removed to federal court
and ordered to arbitration. Plaintiff received a Final Award on 9 May 2024.
On 26 March 2025, Plaintiff filed a complaint against TitleMax seeking
-2-
JEFFERIES V. TITLEMAX OF S. CAROLINA, INC.
Opinion of the Court
confirmation of the Arbitration Award and entry of judgment against TitleMax; on 5
May 2025, TitleMax filed a motion to vacate the Arbitration Award. These matters
came on for hearing on 12 May 2025 in Guilford County Superior Court. On 27 May
2025, the trial court entered an order confirming the Arbitration Award and denying
TitleMax’s motion to vacate and entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff.
The court also entered an order confirming Arbitration Awards for Coleman
Frazier, Brianna Hester, and Daniel Stanback and Ella Stanback and denying
TitleMax’s motions to vacate the Arbitration Awards and entered separate judgments
for the plaintiffs in the companion case of Frazier v. TitleMax of Virginia, Inc.
(COA25-703). The findings of fact, conclusions of law, and ruling of the trial court
were virtually identical.
We are contemporaneously filing an opinion in Frazier v. TitleMax of Virginia,
Inc. (COA25-703). For the reasons set forth in Frazier, we conclude that the trial court
did not err by denying vacatur and confirming the Arbitration Award and entering
judgment in favor of Plaintiff. The court’s order and judgment are affirmed. See
Frazier v. TitleMax of Va., Inc. (COA25-703).
AFFIRMED.
Judges STROUD and GORE concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
-3-