holding that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in the defendants’ favor on the basis of the statute of limitations when there were factual disputes over when the plaintiff could have discovered the defendants’ breach of fiduciary duty
How later courts described this case
- holding that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in the defendants’ favor on the basis of the statute of limitations when there were factual disputes over when the plaintiff could have discovered the defendants’ breach of fiduciary duty
- considering equitable estoppel of statute of repose in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-50 (a)(5), which expressly provides that limitation does not apply to benefit of party which has engaged in fraud or willful or wanton negligence
- affirming summary judgment for the defendants on a claim of constructive fraud where the plaintiff adduced no evidence "tending to show that [the defendants] sought to benefit themselves in the transaction"
- “[G]iven Plaintiff’s failure to identify any act or omission on the part of Trillium Links that was done with conscious or reckless disregard for the rights and safety of others, we conclude that the trial court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of Trillium Links with respect to Plaintiff’s gross negligence claim.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Judge ROBERT N. HUNTER, JR.
concurring in part and concurring in result only in part in separate opinion prior to 6 September 2014.
I concur in the opinion of the majority in all respects except for the analysis of the constructive fraud claim. For the reasons discussed in Orr v. Calvert, 212 N.C. App. 254, 270 , 713 S.E.2d 39, 50 (Hunter, Jr., J., dissenting), rev’d for reasons stated in dissenting opinion, 365 N.C. 320 , 720 S.E.2d 387 (2011), I only concur in the results as to this issue.