Breach of Contract Cases

Price d/b/a Peak Billing (Price) contracted with Mountain Sleep Diagnostics, Inc. (MSD) to provide billing services for MSD and its patients. The contract automatically renewed every year unless one party notified the other of its intent to terminate at least 90 days before the renewal date. Disputes under the contract, including any involving inadequate notice of the contract's termination, were subject to binding arbitration, and the prevailing party in an arbitrated dispute was entitled to attorney fees. MSD terminated Price's contract less than 90 days before the renewal date and Price filed a motion to compel arbitration in district court. The court granted the motion, and after a two-day arbitration hearing, the arbitrator awarded Price $124,224 for MSD's breach of the contract plus $24,600 in attorney fees. The trial court affirmed the award. MSD moved to vacate the award, alleging that, while performing billing services for MSD, Price had committed fraud by misappropriating more than $60,000 in payments meant for MSD. The trial court issued an order denying MSD's motion to vacate and granting Price's motion to confirm. On appeal, MSD argued that the arbitrator's award should be vacated because discoveries MSD made after the arbitration was complete established by clear and convincing evidence that Price procured the arbitration award through fraud, and the district court was required to hold a hearing on the motion to vacate. Though the merits of an arbitration award are generally unreviewable, a court must vacate an arbitration award if it was "procured by corruption, fraud, or other undue means." A party seeking to vacate an award on the grounds that it was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means must show by clear and convincing evidence that (1) fraud occurred (2) the fraud was not discoverable by exercising due diligence before or during the arbitration and (3) the fraud had a material effect on a dispositive issue in the arbitration. Motions to c

An internecine conflict led to a suit asserting breach of contract and a variety of torts. The defendants moved to compel arbitration, but the trial court deferred ruling on the motion. Instead, the court granted the plaintiff's request for a temporary injunction and ordered the parties to mediate their dispute. When the defendants refused to participate in mediation, the court held them in contempt. We granted the application of the defendants for an extraordinary appeal to determine whether the trial court erred in not proceeding summarily to the determination of whether there was an agreement to arbitrate. Upon review, we vacate the three orders issued after the motion to compel arbitration was filed and remand for the court to determine whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists.

Public employees retirement system N.C. Gen. Stat. sections 128 and 161 non-accrual of benefits after criminal conduct conversion of sick leave U.S. Const. art. I, sec. 10 N.C. Const. art. I., sec. 19 and 27.

Public employees retirement system N.C. Gen. Stat. sections 128 and 161 non-accrual of benefits after criminal conduct conversion of sick leave U.S. Const. art. I, sec. 10 N.C. Const. art. I., sec. 19 and 27.

Public employees retirement system N.C. Gen. Stat. sections 128 and 161 non-accrual of benefits after criminal conduct conversion of sick leave U.S. Const. art. I, sec. 10 N.C. Const. art. I., sec. 19 and 27.

Arbitration, waiver, abuse of discretion, enforceability, R.C. 2711.02. Appellants appealed the trial court's finding that they waived a contractual right to arbitrate Appellee's counterclaim. The trial court's decision was affirmed. There was no abuse of discretion where the trial court considered the totality of the circumstances, including Appellants' initiation and participation in the litigation before and after asserting the contractual right to arbitrate. The trial court did not rule that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable for possibly excluding class actions from arbitration. Accordingly, enforceability of the arbitration agreement was not properly before the court on appeal.

Summary judgment agency apparent authority successor in interest statute of frauds equity fraudulent misrepresentation unjust enrichment civil conspiracy deposition. Plaintiff-appellant loaned over $400,000 dollars to the owner of Barker Products, which began suffering financial difficulties. The defendant-appellee approached the members of the company with a plan to purchase the company. The parties dispute whether the defendant promised the plaintiff employment and/or an equity share as part of the defendant's ownership in order to pay off the plaintiff's debt. The defendant purchased the assets of the company and renamed it Cleveland Plating. Plaintiff brought suit against the defendant alleging that the defendant had agreed to repay the loans through employment and/or the equity share. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment as to all claims. The court granted the motion and dismissed all the claims. We found that the motion was improperly granted as to two claims and that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether the defendant, and an individual acting as his agent, had bound Cleveland Plating to pay off the plaintiff's loans.