Love Done Gone

The Court of Appeals recently affirmed the dismissal of a State Highway Patrol Officer, Monty S. Poarch.  The decision can be found here: LINK 

Mr. Poarch had an on-again, off-again extramarital affair over the course of fifteen (15) years with Donna Lynne Kirby.  Ms. Kirby, evidently, ended the affair.  Mr. Poarch, however, did not take the news well and pulled Ms. Kirby over, which lead to a complaint filed by Ms. Kirby. 

That, in turn, resulted in allegations, later confirmed by Mr. Poarch, that he and Ms. Kirby had been engaged in some adult activity while he was on duty... And in the patrol car. 

Mr. Poarch argued that other officers had committed worse acts but were not dismissed.  While it boggles the mind to think of worse acts, the Court of Appeals said it would not "shackle the Patrol to the worse personnel decisions that they have made." 

Mr. Poarch would have been wise to listen to the words of Billy Currington, and just let love done gone:

Like snowflakes when the weather warms up
Like leaves on the trees when the autumn comes
Like the dogwood blossoms in a late spring rain
All the disappearin' bubbles in a glass of champagne
Like a red kite lost in a blue sky wind
I don't know where the good times went
It ain't nothin' we ever said or ever did wrong
It's just love done gone

New Opinions

Supreme Court published 4 opinions last week, they are here: http://appellate.nccourts.org/opinions/?c=sc&year=2012

Nothing of note for this blog purposes.  Those that work for HOAs or the like might be interested in this case: http://appellate.nccourts.org/opinions/?c=1&pdf=MjAxMi8yNjhBMTEtMS5wZGY=

If a Flute Maker Marries You, is it Valid?

Well I have no idea.  And honestly, I've never thought about it.  But Hawk Littlejohn, who, according to Wiki, is perhaps the greatest Native-American flute maker, married a couple in in a two-day ceremony back in October of 1989.  He was also a medicine man, and according to Wiki again, served as an adjunct professor at UNC's medical school.  Given the recent academic issues at UNC, this Deac will refrain from making a comment about that particular position.

In any event, the couple that married, sadly, divorced.  And the divorce was subject to a recent appeal found here. 

The actual holding of the case isn't that interesting: appeal of an alimony award while an attorneys' fees order is pending is interlocutory and subject to dismissal.

At the trial court level, however, Judge Leslie found that she did not need to reach the issue of whether Hawk Littlejohn's ceremony was valid, because when the couple renewed their vows in a "traditional" church, the defendant-husband was estopped from denying the validity of Hawk Littlejohn's ceremony.

So what's the take away?  I have no idea, but it gave me a chance to post a picture of a Hawk, and a Littlejohn:

Judgement Day for John Conner's Lien

New opinion that construction lawyers should take a quick read of can be found here: John Conner Construction Inc. v. Grandfather Holding Company, Inc.

Generally, a contractor has lien rights when the contractor has entered into an agreement with the "owner" of property and has provided labor and/or materials.  N.C.G.S. s 44A-8.  The "owner" of the property is one who holds an "interest" in the property.

Twenty-five years ago an issue came up as to whether a certain party was actually an "owner" in Carolina Builders Corp. v. Howard-Veasey Homes, Inc., 72 N.C. App. 224, 324 S.E.2d 626 (1985).  In that case, the "owner" of the property was only under contract to purchase the property, but had not yet closed.  Prior to closing, the "owner" contracted with a contractor to provide labor and materials to the property.  The Court concluded that the contractor had lien rights because the "owner" had an equitable interest in the property.

Yesterday, in John Conner Construction, and it is unclear what, if any responsibility the Terminator played in this, the Court of Appeals dismissed Conner's action to enforce a lien.  Setting aside the obvious reason, that a robot from the future was sent to sabotage the case, Mr. Conner had contracted with a non-owner of property, and that non-owner wasn't under contract to purchase the property.  Thus, the Court of Appeals held that Mr. Conner had no lien rights.  The fact that the non-owner later became the actual owner did not alter this result.

Bottom line: if a contractor enters into a agreement with a party that isn't yet under contract to purchase property, the contractor will have no lien rights.

Judge Hunter (from Greensboro) did provide a dissent, however, so the Supreme Court will have its chance to weigh in on this.