holding N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-75.4(5)(d) applied when “defendants directed plaintiffs to send payment due them to Florida, and plaintiffs distributed the payment from North Carolina ... in the form of a check drawn on a bank in this state”
How later courts described this case
- holding N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-75.4(5)(d) applied when “defendants directed plaintiffs to send payment due them to Florida, and plaintiffs distributed the payment from North Carolina ... in the form of a check drawn on a bank in this state”
- single check written from in-state account
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Judge John
dissents.
I respectfully dissent. Unlike the majority, I believe the trial court’s findings of fact are supported by competent evidence, albeit *32 controverted, are thereby conclusive on appeal, Olivetti Corp. v. Ames Business Systems, Inc., 319 N.C. 534, 541 , 356 S.E.2d 578, 582 , reh’g denied, 320 N.C. 639 , 360 S.E.2d 92 (1987) (trial court’s findings of fact conclusive on appeal if supported by competent evidence), and sustain its conclusion that defendants’ contacts with this State were sufficient such that exercise of personal jurisdiction “over [them] does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.” See New Bern Pool & Supply Co. v. Graubart, 94 N.C. App. 619, 624 , 381 S.E.2d 156, 159 (1989), aff’d per curiam, 326 N.C. 480 , 390 S.E.2d 137 (1990) (“existence of minimum contacts cannot be ascertained by mechanical rules, but rather by consideration of the facts of each case in light of traditional notions of fair play and justice”) (citation omitted). Accordingly, I vote to affirm the trial court.