Albritton v. Albritton Prop. Assocs., Ltd. P'ship

Albritton v. Albritton Prop. Assocs., Ltd. P’ship, 2021 NCBC 34.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
GREENE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
19 CVS 47

CHARLES BRADFORD
ALBRITTON and RYAN
BATCHELOR ALBRITTON, CO-
EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF
CHARLES HOPKINS ALBRITTON,
III,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ALBRITTON PROPERTY
ASSOCIATES, LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP; BILLE J. ORDER AND OPINION ON BILLE
ALBRITTON; WILLIAM DAVID AND BILLE ENTITIES’ MOTION FOR
ALBRITTON; and DEBORAH A. PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS
KATKAVECK, TO (I) CLAIMS BY BILLE AND BILLE
Defendants. ENTITIES AGAINST DAVID,
DEBORAH, AND ARG AND (II)
TAG, INC., CARE CENTER OF CERTAIN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
TENNESSEE, INC., THE RAISED BY DAVID, DEBORAH, AND
ALBRITTON COMPANY, INC. and
EASTERN RETIREMENT ARG
CENTERS, INC.

Additional Defendants,

v.

WILLIAM DAVID ALBRITTON,
DEBORAH A. KATKAVECK, and
ALBRITTON REALTY GROUP,
L.L.C.,
Cross-Claim Defendants.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendants Bille J. Albritton

(“Bille”), Care Center of Tennessee, Inc. (“Care Center”), The Albritton Company, Inc.

(“TAC”), and Eastern Retirement Centers, Inc.’s (“ERC”) (collectively referred to as

the “Movants”) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to (I) Claims by Bille and
Bille Entities1 against William David Albritton (“David”), Deborah A. Katkaveck

(“Deborah”), and Albritton Realty Group, L.L.C. (“ARG”), and (II) Certain Affirmative

Defenses of David, Deborah, and ARG. (“Motion,” ECF No. 129.) Movants filed

evidentiary materials in support of the Motion (“Movants’ Evidence,” ECF No. 130.1–

.33), and a Memorandum in Support of the Motion (“Mem. in Supp.,” ECF No. 131).

David, Deborah, and ARG 2 (collectively, for purposes of deciding this Motion, these

parties are referred to as “Defendants”) filed a Response in Opposition to the motion

for summary judgment (“Response in Opposition,” ECF No. 140), and certain

evidentiary materials in opposition to the Motion. (“Defendants’ Evidence,” ECF No.

140.1–.3.) Movants subsequently filed a reply in support of the Motion. (ECF No.

148.)

THE COURT has thoroughly reviewed the Motion, Movants’ Evidence,

Defendants’ Evidence, the briefs in support of and in opposition to the Motion, the

applicable law, and other appropriate matters of record and CONCLUDES that the

Motion should be GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part, as set forth below.

I. INTRODUCTION

1. This case arises out of disputes between Bille and her children, David

and Deborah, over the operations and management of Defendant Albritton Property

1 Collectively, Movants and Defendant Tag, Inc. (“Tag”) are referred to as the “Bille Entities.”

However, Bille and the Bille Entities represent that they do not seek summary judgment as
to any claims involving Tag.

2 ARG is a North Carolina limited liability company organized on or about October 1998.

ARG is owned by its member managers, David and Deborah. (ECF No. 38, at ¶ 13.)
Associates Limited Partnership (“APALP”) and the Bille Entities. Bille, David, and

Deborah are partners in APALP. APALP has operated Care Center, TAC, ERC, and

Tag since the mid-1990s.

2. From 1996 until October 2018, Bille, David, Deborah, and Bille’s

deceased son, Charles Bradford Albritton (“Charles”), acted as a management board

for APALP. However, in or around 2004, Bille turned over the day-to-day

management of APALP to David, Deborah, and Charles, and then to David and

Deborah after Charles passed away. Bille subsequently stopped attending meetings

of the management board and became significantly less involved in APALP’s

operation of the Bille Entities. However, Bille, David, and Deborah sharply dispute

whether, and when, Bille ceased active participation in the overall management of

APALP and the Bille Entities. Movants claim that over a number of years up to and

including 2018, and without her knowledge, David and Deborah breached their

fiduciary duties to Bille and the Bille Entities by engaging in self-dealing and other

mismanagement of the Bille Entities (the “Challenged Transactions”) and by making

a transfer of $700,000 from TAC to Charles’s individually owned horse and saddle

business (the “Saddle Transaction”).

3. On the other hand, David and Deborah contend, variously: that Bille

participated in or approved of some of the Challenged Transactions and the Saddle

Transaction; that Bille ceded complete authority and autonomy to David and Deborah

to manage the Bille Entities; and that Bille told David and Deborah that she did not

want to be informed about the details of the companies’ transactions because it was
a source of stress to her. David and Deborah also claim that it was Bille’s intent,

through the creation of APALP, to turn over ownership of the Bille Entities to David

and Deborah, and that Bille was aware of and condoned the Challenged Transactions

and the Saddle Transaction.

II. FACTS

A. Bille and the Bille Entities

4. Bille is over 90 years old. Bille is the mother of David, Deborah, and

Charles. Charles passed away in January 2018.

5. It is undisputed that Bille is the 100% and sole owner of the Bille

Entities. Since the 1990s, David has been the Chief Financial Officer and General

Manager of the Care Center and ERC, the Chief Financial Officer of TAC, and the

General Manager of Tag. (David Dep. (I), ECF No. 130.5, at pp. 12–13.) Deborah’s

roles in the Bille Entities are less well-defined, and she played a much more limited

part in managing APALP and the Bille Entities than David. (ECF No. 103.4, passim.)

6. Bille was also the owner of three pieces of commercial real property: (i)

the Belhaven Building, a commercial building which is rented to ERC; (ii) the Lowell

Building, a commercial building which is rented to an independent operator; and (iii)

the Hookerton Campus (collectively the “Three Properties”). (Verified Cross-Claim,

ECF No. 11, at ¶¶ 16–17.)
B. APALP

7. In 1996, Bille formed APALP and contributed the Three Properties to

the partnership. (Id.) Since that time, APALP has been the owner of the Three

Properties. (Id. at ¶ 17.)

8. On or around August 1, 1996, Bille, David, Deborah, and Charles

entered into an Agreement of Limited Partnership for APALP (“Partnership

Agreement”). (ECF No. 11, at ¶ 19; Partnership Agreement, ECF No. 1, at Ex. B, .pdf

pp. 15–49.) Bille disputes the authenticity of the written Partnership Agreement

currently in this Court’s record, which was produced by David and Deborah during

discovery. (EFC No. 11, at ¶ 21.) Nevertheless, the Partnership Agreement provides,

in relevant part, as follows:

“General Partners” mean BILLE J. ALBRITTON,
WILLIAM DAVID ALBRITTON, CHARLES H.
ALBRITTON, III, and DEBORAH A. KATKAVECK, and
the persons who may be admitted to the Partnership as
General Partners from time to time. The Partnership shall
be managed by BILLE J. ALBRITTON during her lifetime
or until she resigns or is unable or unwilling to serve
(referred to hereinafter as the “Managing General
Partner”).

When BILLE J. ALBRITTON is no longer serving as the
Managing General Partner, the duties and obligations of
the Managing General Partner shall be performed by the
majority vote of the General Partners (with each General
Partner having one vote), except as otherwise set forth in
this Agreement.

...

When Bille J. Albritton is no longer serving as Managing
General Partner, the General Partners may exercise all of
the rights and powers of general partners as more
particularly provided in the Act and in this Agreement,
except the rights and powers set forth below, which shall
only be performed by General Partners with the
unanimous consent of all Partners:

...

Without obtaining the consent of all of the General and
Limited Partners, the Managing General Partner shall not
do any act in contravention of the Act. The Managing
General Partners, and all General Partners, shall manage
the Partnership always keeping in mind their fiduciary
duties to all partners.

(ECF No. 1, at Ex. B, .pdf pp. 17–18, 31–32.)

9. The Partnership Agreement contains the signatures of Bille, David,

Deborah, and Charles as both “General Partners” and “Limited Partners.” (ECF No.

1, at Ex. B, .pdf pp. 15–49.) Nevertheless, Movants insist “Bille is also the only

General Partner [of APALP], owning a 1% general partnership interest, which is the

only general partnership interest in [APALP].” (ECF No. 11, at ¶¶ 26–27.) David

and Deborah dispute this claim and allege that they are also general partners of

APALP. (Answer to Amended Cross-Claim, ECF No. 51, ¶¶ 34–40.) It is undisputed,

however, that many corporate documents, including APALP’s tax returns, list David

and Deborah as limited, and not general, partners of APALP. (Deborah Dep., ECF

No. 130.4, at pp. 55–59.)

10. It is undisputed that one of the reasons for forming APALP was to

consolidate Albritton family assets, including the Three Properties and the Bille

Entities, under one umbrella organization and to facilitate operation of the Bille

Entities. (Bille Dep., ECF No. 140.2, at p. 17.) Bille testified that APALP was formed
so that David, Deborah, and Charles could “help run the [Bille Entities].” (ECF No.

140.2, at p. 17.)

11. David contends that when APALP was formed the parties intended that

Bille would transfer ownership in APALP and the Bille Entities to David, Deborah,

and Charles through some type of tax-free “gifting” of Bille’s ownership interests.

(ECF No. 130.5 at pp. 16–17.) David claims that there were efforts made, with the

involvement of attorneys, to draft a written agreement for the transfer of Bille’s

ownership interests to her children, but that the parties were never able to reach an

agreement. (Id. at pp. 17–19.)

C. Bille’s Involvement in the Management of the Bille Entities and
APALP

12. In or about 2004, Bille turned over day-to-day management of the Bille

Entities and APALP to David, Deborah, and Charles. (ECF No. 11, at p. 11, ¶ 40.)

However, the parties differ as to what role Bille played in the management of the

Bille Entities and APALP after she turned over day-to-day management, and what

period she was actively involved in management. The record evidence on these

questions is conflicting and confusing.

13. In 1996, Bille, David, Deborah, and Charles formed a management

board to manage the Bille Entities. (ECF No. 140.1 at ¶¶ 3, 7; ECF No. 130.5, at pp.

14–15.) The management board held monthly meetings. (ECF No. 140.1, at p. 45.)

Bille claims she attended the monthly meetings for some period after 1996, but is “not

sure” when she stopped attending the meetings. (Id.) David states that Bille stopped

attending the monthly meetings “in or around 2012.” (ECF No. 130.1, at ¶ 8.)
Deborah testified that Bille stopped attending the monthly meetings “in the 1990s.”

(ECF No. 130.4, at pp. 42–43.)

14. Bille’s accountant, Lewis Jones (“Jones”) testified in his deposition that

he attended the monthly meetings, but that after 2001, Bille attended the board

monthly meetings “sparingly.” (L. Jones Dep., ECF No. 140.3, at p. 17.) When Bille

did not attend the meetings, Jones would meet with her at her home or by telephone

to summarize what had occurred at the meetings. (Id. at p. 18.) Jones’ testimony

regarding when he last attended the monthly meetings was contradictory. He first

indicated he attended the monthly meetings up until 2018, but later claimed he last

attended in or around 2010. (Id. at pp. 16, 39.)

15. The parties also dispute when Bille stopped participating in making

decisions for the Bille Entities. In her deposition, Bille claimed that she participated

in major decisions until “the last few years.” (ECF No. 140.2, at pp. 58–60.)

16. David claims that he managed and ran APALP from 1996 until 2018,

and that he also managed the Bille Entities from the “early 1990’s” through 2018.

(ECF No. 140.1, at ¶¶ 5–6; Dep. of Bille Albritton, ECF No. 107.2, at pp. 55–56.)

David also contends that he made all financial decisions for the Bille Entities and

APALP. (ECF No. 130.5, passim.) However, David’s testimony regarding the role

Deborah and Charles played in these decisions is confusing. David testified that he

largely made financial decisions for the Bille Entities and APALP himself without

consultation with Deborah and Charles (Id. at pp. 22, 25–26, 34–35, 37), but also

claimed that he had “been managing the daily operations of the Partnership with the
knowledge and consent of all of the other partners since 1996” (ECF No. 140.1, at ¶

5). David also claimed that he “never obtained approval [from Bille] because [he]

never needed approval from her for any transaction that [he] made.” (Second

Deposition of David Albritton, ECF No. 130.6, at p. 11.)

17. Deborah testified in her deposition that she, David, and Charles made

all of the financial decisions for the Bille Entities and APALP after Bille stopped

attending the monthly management board meetings. (ECF No. 130.4, at p. 43.)

However, Deborah also testified that David made all decisions regarding

intercompany transfers between the Bille Entities without her involvement. (Id. at

p. 48.)

18. It is undisputed that for some period of time prior to October 2018, David

treated the assets of the Bille Entities as joint and interchangeable. (ECF No. 130.5,

passim.) Among other transactions, David: directed the transfer of funds between

the Bille Entities as needed to cover expenses of the companies; directed the payment

of compensation and distributions to himself, Deborah, and Charles on an ad hoc

basis from various Bille Entities; used company funds to pay for personal vehicles for

himself and Deborah; used company funds to pay for his children’s education; used

company funds to pay expenses for his son’s unrelated business; paid for life

insurance policies on himself, Deborah, and Charles from company funds; directed

payments of significant funds to an unrelated horse and saddle business owned by

Charles and paid employees of that business from TAC funds. (Id.) David explained

that, although the Bille Entities were separate companies and separate legal entities,
he viewed them as “one big pot and we really didn’t care how much was in the

individual pots [companies] because that’s how we were looking at it as one big

enterprise.” (Id. at p. 40.) Accordingly, he “constantly” moved money around as

needed to bolster the cash flow of the various entities. (Id. at p. 36.) David

summarized his management of the Bille Entities as follows:

[s]o to recap what I’ve previously stated, we looked at these
companies as all of ours and as one big enterprise. So
whether I took money out of this company or Deborah took
money out of that company we all had an agreement that
there was a limit to that, I mean, we just couldn’t go in
there and get anything we wanted. But we considered that
all as compensation. Whether it was handled as a loan or
an expense on the company’s books really didn’t matter to
us.

(Id. at p. 58.)

19. In her deposition testimony, Deborah confirmed that the Bille Entities

were run as one enterprise and that they often did not follow business formalities:

Q. So when one entity needed money from another entity
it’s because that entity receiving the money wasn’t doing
well financially?

A. Right. It all was considered one thing, one business, you
know, we operated it that way.

Q. And when you say “we” –

A. Well, you know, we’re a family business -- were, and so
we didn’t -- we didn’t have the formalities of some of the
businesses that, you know, weren’t family.

Q. Well, they were each separate entities, right?

A. Correct.

Q. Separate tax returns?
A. Right.

Q. And when you say “we didn’t follow the formalities” who
were you referring to?

A. Well, we didn’t have documents signed every time
money was transferred.

(ECF No. 130.4, at pp. 50–51.)

20. Although David and Deborah did not necessarily document each of the

transfers David made, Jones stated that David kept a spreadsheet “matrix” of all of

the intercompany and personal transfers that showed to which entity or individual

transfers were made. (ECF No. 140.3, at pp. 25–33.)

D. The Challenged Transactions and the Saddle
Transaction

21. In 2018, Bille retained accounting and legal professionals to determine

the status of APALP and the Bille Entities. On or around September or October 2018,

Bille first discovered what she believed to be numerous improprieties and unlawful

acts committed by David and Deborah causing harm to APALP and the Bille Entities.

(ECF No. 11, at ¶¶ 53, 55.) On October 4, 2018, Bille terminated David and Deborah

from APALP and the Bille Entities for their alleged gross mismanagement and self-

dealing. (Id. at ¶¶ 56–57.)

22. In their Amended Crossclaims, Bille and the Bille Entities allege

numerous discrete improper transfers of assets and payments made from the Bille

Entities by David, Deborah, and Charles that comprise the Challenged Transactions
and the Saddle Transaction. (ECF No. 38, at ¶¶ 71–148.) In the Motion, Bille and

the Bille Entities seek damages arising from the Challenged Transactions as follows:

The undisputed evidence establishes that Bille and the
Bille Entities are entitled to judgment as a matter of law
under theories of conversion, unjust enrichment,
constructive fraud, or breach of contract based on unlawful
transfers from Bille or the Bille Entities to Deborah, David,
or ARG:

a. ERC is entitled to judgment against David for
$341,706.18;
b. ERC is entitled to judgment against Deborah for
$330,942.81;
c. ERC is entitled to a judgment against ARG for
$210,450.00;
d. CCI is entitled to a judgment against Deborah for
$48,500;
e. CCI is entitled to a judgment against David for
$107,933.31;
f. CCI is entitled to a judgment against ARG for
$256,508.67;
g. Bille is entitled to a judgment against David for
$67,150.00.

...

20. The undisputed evidence establishes that Bille and
the Bille Entities are entitled to judgment as a matter of law
on the following claims:

a. Breach of fiduciary duty against David and Deborah
for payments made by TAC to Charles’ Horse and
Saddle Business of a minimum of $700,000.00 for no
legitimate business purpose;

b. Breach of fiduciary duty against David and Deborah
for all transactions detailed in paragraph #18.

(ECF No. 129, at p. 5.)
23. In their Mem. in Supp., Bille and the Bille Entities set out the specific

amounts of damages being sought by Bille and each of the Bille Entities and the

particular party against whom damages are sought. (ECF No. 131, at p. 5.)

E. Defendants’ Position

24. In response to the Motion, Defendants contend that “[w]hile Bille was

the record owner . . . she had ceded all management authority to Charles, David and

Deborah” and that “Bille did not maintain sole governing authority of the entities and

that they were permitted to make decisions for these companies based on their roles

as General Partners of Albritton Property Associates, LP, their roles as members of

the management group that oversaw the companies, and David’s role as manager of

Bille’s Entities.” (ECF No. 140, at p. 3.)3 Defendants further contend that Bille’s

claim that she did not know about the Challenged Transactions and the Saddle

Transaction is “opposed” by David’s affidavit testimony and the testimony of Bille’s

accountant, Jones. (Id. at pp. 4–5.)

25. Finally, David and Deborah also claim that Bille told them on multiple

occasions that she did not want to be informed about the operations or financial

conditions of the Bille Entities because it caused her stress. (ECF No. 130.4, at pp.

44–45, 96; ECF No. 130.5, at pp. 24–25.)

3 The Court notes that Defendants’ record citation following this statement in their Response

in Opposition to Bille’s deposition testimony (ECF No. 140.2, at p. 40) does not support the
statement.
III. ANALYSIS

26. Due to the large number of claims, including counterclaims and

crossclaims, raised by the parties, the Motion and Mem. in Supp. are confusing. 4 The

Court believes that Movants seek summary judgment as to the following claims and

affirmative defenses:

a. Movants first seek dismissal of David and Deborah’s crossclaims for

dissolution of APALP (“First Claim for Relief”) and appointment of a

receiver (“First and Second Claim[s] for Relief;” ECF No. 51, at pp. 32–33)

because the claims are moot. Movants argue that “David, Deborah, and

ARG’s non-monetary claims for Dissolution and for an Appointment of a

Receiver are now moot as Jason Hendren was appointed the Receiver on

April 26, 2019 and tasked with the exclusive management and decision-

making authority for APALP and to wind-up APALP and distribute its

assets.” (ECF No. 129, at p. 3.) Defendants do not respond to this

argument, and the Court concludes that David and Deborah’s crossclaims

for dissolution of APALP (“First Claim for Relief”) and appointment of a

receiver (“Second Claim for Relief”) should be DISMISSED as MOOT.

b. Movants seek summary judgment in their favor and against David,

Deborah, and ARG as to the Challenged Transactions under Bille and Bille

Entities’ claims for breach of fiduciary duty (“First Claim,” ECF No. 38, at

4 Adding to the confusion, Movants attached to the Motion a series of charts purportedly

setting forth the claims on which they seek summary judgment that appears, to this Court,
to contradict certain assertions regarding the relief sought by the Motion contained in the
Motion and Mem. in Supp. (ECF No. 129, at pp. 8–9.)
pp. 26–27), constructive fraud (“Third Claim for Relief,” Id. at p. 28),

conversion (“Fifth Claim,” Id. at pp. 29–30), unjust enrichment (“Seventh

Claim,” Id. at pp. 31–32), and breach of contract (“Fifteenth Claim,” Id. at

pp. 36–37). (ECF No. 129, at p. 5.)

c. Movants seek summary judgment in their favor on TAC’s claims against

David as to the Saddle Transaction under Movants’ claims for breach of

fiduciary duty (“First Claim,” ECF No. 38, at pp. 26–27.) (ECF No. 129, at

p. 5.)

d. Movants also seek summary judgment in their favor on TAC’s claims

against Defendants as to the Challenged Transactions and the Saddle

Transaction under Movants’ claims for unfair and deceptive trade practices

in violation of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices

Act, N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1 (“UDTPA”) (“Sixth Claim,” ECF No. 38, at pp. 30–

31). (ECF No. 129, at p. 5.)

e. Finally, Movants seek summary judgment in their favor and against

Defendants on Defendants’ affirmative defenses for: (i) bad faith, (ii) failure

to mitigate, (iii) the Statute of Frauds, (iv) waiver, laches and tacit

acceptance. (ECF No. 129, at p. 6.)

A. Standard of Review

27. “Summary judgment is appropriate ‘if the pleadings, depositions,

answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any,

show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Variety Wholesalers, Inc. v. Salem Logistics

Traffic Servs., LLC, 365 N.C. 520, 523 (2012) (quoting N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c)).

An issue is “material” if “resolution of the issue is so essential that the party against

whom it is resolved may not prevail.” McNair v. Boyette, 282 N.C. 230, 235 (1972).

“A ‘genuine issue’ is one that can be maintained by substantial evidence.” Dobson v.

Harris, 352 N.C. 77, 83 (2000). “Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a

reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion and means more

than a scintilla or a permissible inference.” Ussery v. Branch Banking and Trust Co.,

368 N.C. 325, 335 (2015) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

28. The moving party bears the burden of presenting evidence which shows

that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the movant is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law. Hensley v. Nat’l Freight Transp., Inc., 193 N.C. App.

561, 563 (2008). The moving party may meet this burden by “proving an essential

element of the opposing party’s claim does not exist, cannot be proven at trial, or

would be barred by an affirmative defense.” Variety Wholesalers, Inc., 365 N.C. at

523.

29. Once the movant presents evidence in support of the motion, the

nonmovant “cannot rely on the allegations or denials set forth in her pleading [ ] and

must, instead, forecast sufficient evidence to show the existence of a genuine issue of

material fact in order to preclude an award of summary judgment.” Steele v. Bowden,

238 N.C. App. 566, 577 (2014) (internal citation omitted). In determining whether

the non-movant has met its burden in opposing a motion for summary judgment, the
judge “unavoidably asks whether reasonable jurors could find by a preponderance of

the evidence that the plaintiff is entitled to a verdict[.]” Sloan v. Miller Bldg. Corp.,

119 N.C. App. 162, 165–66 (1995) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.

242, 252–55 (1986)) (quotations and emphasis omitted).

30. In summary, this Court must decide “not whether there is literally no

evidence, but whether there is any upon which a jury could properly proceed to find

a verdict for the party producing it, upon whom the onus of proof is imposed.” Value

Health Sols. v. Pharm. Research Assocs., 2021 NCBC LEXIS 37, at *29 (N.C. Super.

Ct. Apr. 5, 2021) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251).

B. Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Constructive Fraud

31. In their first crossclaim, Movants bring a claim for breach of fiduciary

duty on behalf of Care Center, ERC, and TAC against David and Deborah. 5 (ECF

No. 38, at p. 26–27.) Movants allege that “Bille granted certain day-to-day functions

of the Bille Entities to” David and Deborah and that “[a]s a result of this delegation

[David and Deborah] owed a fiduciary duty to the Bille Entities.” (Id.) Movants allege

that David and Deborah breached these duties by engaging in the Challenged

Transactions and the Saddle Transaction. (Id.)

5 The allegations are purportedly against David, Deborah, and ARG.
(ECF No. 38, at pp. 26–
27.) However, Movants do not claim that ARG owed Movants a fiduciary duty nor do they
allege any facts that could support such a claim.
32. Movants’ third claim is for constructive fraud against David and

Deborah 6 based on the Challenged Transactions and the Saddle Transaction. (Id. at

p. 28.) Movants allege a “relationship of trust and confidence existed between [Bille]

and the Bille Entities and” David and Deborah, and that they “used their position of

trust and confidence to cause damages to “[Bille] and the Bille Entities in numerous

transactions, which were to the detriment of [Bille] and the Bille Entities and for the

benefit of” David and Deborah. (Id.)

33. As a preliminary matter, in their Mem. in Supp., Movants clarify the

scope of the Motion, stating that “TAC does not seek summary judgment against

Deborah on its breach of fiduciary claim.” (ECF No. 131, at p. 17 n.2.) Accordingly,

the Court need only consider TAC’s claim for breach of fiduciary duty to the extent

that claim is asserted against David.

34. A fiduciary relationship is defined as “one in which there has been a

special confidence reposed in one who in equity and good conscience is bound to act

in good faith and with due regard to the interests of the one reposing

confidence.” Dalton v. Camp, 353 N.C. 647, 651 (2001) (internal quotations omitted).

In order to establish a claim for breach of fiduciary duty, the plaintiff must show that:

(1) defendant owed plaintiff a fiduciary duty; (2) defendant breached his fiduciary

duty; and (3) the breach of fiduciary duty was a proximate cause of injury to the

plaintiff. Farndale Co., LLC v. Gibellini, 176 N.C. App. 60, 68 (2006). A claim

6 The allegations are purportedly against David, Deborah, and ARG.
(ECF No. 38, at p. 28.)
However, Movants do not claim that ARG owed Movants a fiduciary duty nor do they allege
any facts that could support such a claim.
for constructive fraud requires that the plaintiff prove a breach of a fiduciary duty

and also that the defendant benefitted himself as a result of the breach. Crumley &

Assocs., P.C. v. Charles Peed & Assocs., P.A., 219 N.C. App. 615, 620 (2012) (“To

establish constructive fraud, a plaintiff must show that defendant (1) owes plaintiff

a fiduciary duty; (2) breached this fiduciary duty; and (3) sought to benefit himself in

the transaction.”).

35. Under North Carolina law, corporate officers owe fiduciary duties to the

corporation, and must discharge their duties “(1) [i]n good faith; (2) [w]ith the care an

ordinarily prudent person in a like position would exercise under similar

circumstances; and (3) [i]n a manner [the officer] reasonably believes to be in the best

interest of the corporation.” N.C.G.S. § 55-8-42(a); accord Seraph Garrison, LLC v.

Garrison, 247 N.C. App. 115, 787 S.E.2d 398 (2016). In Seraph Garrison, the North

Carolina summarized the duties as follows:

[C]orporate directors and officers act in a fiduciary capacity
in the sense that they owe the corporation the duties of
loyalty and due care.

Subdivision 55-8-42(a)(2) outlines the standard by which
an officer’s duty of care is measured. Its specific
language—in a “like a position” and “under similar
circumstances”—acknowledges [ ] that [officers’]
responsibilities will vary from corporation to corporation.
The same holds true for the corporate decision-making
processes that are employed. Even so, subdivision 55-8-
42(a)(2) also imposes an affirmative duty on officers: it
requires them to assume an active and direct role in the
matters that are under their authority.

Subdivision 55-8-42(a)(3) codifies the requirement that an
officer always discharge the responsibilities of the office
“with undivided loyalty” to the corporation. The corporate
law duty of loyalty also imposes an affirmative obligation:
a fiduciary must strive to advance the best interests of the
corporation.

Second, while subsection 55-8-42(a) requires an officer to
act in good faith, this concept cannot be separated from the
duties of loyalty and due care. In other words, the
obligation to act in good faith does not create a discrete,
independent fiduciary duty. Rather, good faith is better
understood as an essential component of the duty of
loyalty. A leading authority on North Carolina business
law has also recognized this obligation as a component of
the duty of due care: “The requirement of good faith is
listed separately in [subsections 55-8-30(a) and 55-8-42(a),]
. . . but it normally operates . . . as a component of the other
two traditional duties, requiring conscientious effort in
discharging the duty of care and constituting the very core
of the duty of loyalty.” Thus, the requirement of good faith
is subsumed under an officer’s duties to the corporation; it
is a primary and comprehensive obligation that compels an
officer to discharge his responsibilities openly, honestly,
conscientiously, and with the utmost devotion to the
corporation.

Third, context matters: the analysis of an officer’s fiduciary
conduct must be judged in light of the background in which
it occurs and the circumstances under which he serves the
corporation. The same holds true for any examination of
“good faith,” an inquiry that presents a mixed question of
law and fact: Whether a party has acted in good faith is a
question of fact for the trier of fact, but the standard by
which the party’s conduct is to be measured is one of law.
In making the determination as to whether a party’s
actions constitute a lack of good faith, the circumstances
and context in which the party acted must be considered.

Seraph Garrison, 787 S.E.2d at 403–04 (cleaned up).

36. The evidence regarding Deborah’s roles in the management of Care

Centers, and ERC is, at best, vague and is conflicting as to what, if any, role Deborah

played in any of the Challenged Transactions. The Court concludes that the question
of whether Deborah owed fiduciary duties to Care Centers and ERC is in dispute.

Therefore, to the extent Movants seek summary judgment against Deborah as to their

claims for breach of fiduciary duties to Care Centers and ERC, the Court concludes

that the Motion should be DENIED.

37. The Movants also have failed to present evidence that David and

Deborah personally benefitted from the Saddle Transaction since the saddle business

was owned exclusively by Charles. Therefore, the evidence currently before the Court

does not support a claim of constructive fraud against David and Deborah, and to the

extent Movants seek summary judgment against David and Deborah as to TAC’s

claim for constructive fraud, the Motion should be DENIED.

38. David admits that he was an officer of TAC, Care Centers, and ERC,

and there is no dispute that he owed fiduciary duties to those corporations. It also is

undisputed that David could not provide any explanation as to how the Challenged

Transactions served the business interests of Care Centers or ERC, or how the Saddle

Transaction was in the interest of TAC. To the contrary, David admits that he

believed that the Bille Entities were “one big pot” and “one big enterprise” (ECF No.

130.5, at p. 40), and transferred funds between, and took money out of, the Bille

Entities with the belief that he, Deborah, and Charles would ultimately be the owners

of those entities.

39. As discussed above, the evidence regarding whether Bille knew of and

approved of the Challenged Transactions is hotly disputed. In response to Care

Centers’, ERC’s, and TAC’s claims for breach of fiduciary duties, Defendants contend:
that Bille “ceded all management authority” in APALP and Bille Entities to Charles,

David, and Deborah (ECF No. 140, at pp. 2–3); that “[t]he question as to who had

what authority to make certain transfers during a specific period of time is a

fundamental, disputed question of fact in this case” (Id. at p. 7); and that Plaintiffs

have failed to show that any of the transfers or transactions were wrongful in the

context of this business” (Id. at p. 6). In summary, Defendants argue that

[i]n order to succeed on her allegation of a breach of duty
at trial, Bille must prove to a jury that she did not
authorize and did not know of the transactions to Charles’
saddle business. She never once complained. She must not
now be allowed to claim that any transaction that she now
disapproves of was wrong and damaging to her and her
companies.

(Id. at p. 7.)

40. The facts regarding whether Bille knew about and authorized David to

engage in the Challenged Transactions and the Saddle Transaction are in dispute.

Since Bille was the sole shareholder in the Bille Entities, if Bille authorized David’s

and Deborah’s conduct, Defendants may be able to establish that the transactions

were not a breach of their fiduciary duties to those entities. As one court has held,

[i]n determining whether [plaintiff], as sole shareholder, is
liable for breach of a fiduciary duty, we may look to
analogous situations in other jurisdictions where a sole
shareholder's acts, which may be detrimental to the
corporation, have been held not to give rise to liability. For
example, it has been held that shareholders, when acting
unanimously, may ratify acts which amount to waste or gift
of corporate assets . . . [and] if an officer of the company
owns all the stock he may use the corporate assets as he
sees fit and there can be no misappropriation of corporate
assets by him. In addition, it has been held that, although
generally majority shareholders cannot make a gift
of corporate property, a person owning all of the legal and
equitable interest in a corporation may give away
the corporate assets.

Pittman v. American Metal Forming Corp., 649 A.2d 356, 363–64 (Md. 1994) (cleaned

up); see also Anderson v. Benson, 394 N.W.2d 171, 175 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986) (“A sole

shareholder of a corporation is free to dispose of corporate assets to his or her own

liking, so long as the corporation or its creditors are not harmed or defrauded, or no

public policy is violated.”).

41. In addition, whether an officer has breached fiduciary duties must be

viewed against the structure and nature of the particular business (or businesses) at

issue. An “[officer’s] responsibilities will vary from corporation to corporation. The

same holds true for the corporate decision-making processes that are employed.”

Seraph Garrison, 787 S.E.2d at 403. Furthermore, “[c]ontext matters: the analysis

of an officer’s fiduciary conduct must be judged in light of the background in which it

occurs and the circumstances under which he serves the corporation . . . . Whether a

party has acted in good faith is a question of fact for the trier of fact, . . . . In making

the determination as to whether a party’s actions constitute a lack of good faith, the

circumstances and context in which the party acted must be considered.” Id. at 404.

42. APALP and the Bille Entities were small, closely held family businesses.

Defendants have presented evidence that Bille intended to transfer her ownership in

APALP and the Bille Entities, that she was aware of and expressly or tacitly

authorized David and Deborah to engage in the Challenged Transactions and the

Saddle Transaction, and that she removed herself from management of APALP and
the Bille Entities and asked David and Deborah not to provide her with the details

regarding the operations of the companies. While these facts are disputed by

Movants, the Court believes a jury should determine whether the Challenged

Transactions and the Saddle Transaction, viewed in context, were breaches of the

duties David owed to the companies.

43. Therefore, to the extent Movants seek summary judgment against

David as to Care Centers’, ERC’s, and TAC’s claims for breach of fiduciary duty, the

Motion should be DENIED.

C. Conversion

44. In their fifth crossclaim, Movants allege claims for conversion against

David, Deborah, and ARG based on the Challenged Transactions and the Saddle

Transaction. (ECF No. 38, at pp. 29–30.) Movants allege that Bille and the Bille

Entities were the “owner[s] of various assets, including monies in their bank accounts

and access to credit card accounts in their name, and were entitled to their immediate

possession.” (Id. at p. 29.) Movants further allege that Defendants “unlawfully

converted said assets to their own use and did not return the assets, nor pay for the

personal charges made on Bille’s credit card, even after demand from the Responding

Defendant.” (Id. at p. 30.)

45. Under North Carolina law, conversion is the “unauthorized assumption

and exercise of the right of ownership over goods or personal chattels belonging to

another, to the alteration of their condition or the exclusion of an owner’s rights.”

Variety Wholesalers, Inc., 365 N.C. at 523 (citation omitted). There are two elements
in a claim for conversion: (1) the plaintiff's ownership, and (2) the defendant’s

wrongful possession. Id. Money, such as the funds at issue here, can be the subject

of a claim for conversion where they can “be sufficiently identified through evidence

of the specific source, specific amount, and specific destination of the funds in

question.” Id. at 529. Defendants do not argue that Movants have not sufficiently

identified the funds at issue in their conversion claim.

46. Defendants contend that Movants are not entitled to summary

judgment on the conversion claim “because there is a genuine issue of material fact

of whether or not Bille knew of the transactions or transfers complained of by

plaintiff, whether or not she had tacitly authorized such actions by ceding operation

control to defendants and whether or not the transfers themselves were in fact

wrongful.” (ECF No. 140, at p. 6.) In support, Defendants contend that it is

undisputed that Bille had given David and Deborah the authority to operate the Bille

Entities and removed herself from the day-to-day management of the companies.

(ECF No. 140, at p. 5.) They also cite to David’s sworn affidavit testimony that “Bille

knew that there were various intercompany transactions and distributions or

payments to or on behalf of other companies, such as ARG and Charles’ businesses

and various members of the group, including herself” (ECF No. 140.1, at ¶ 13), and

Bille’s admission that she knew that David and Deborah “moved money around from

this company to that company” (ECF No. 140.3, at p. 110). Finally, Defendants assert

that Jones “testified that he personally informed Bille of the discussions in the

management board meetings after she chose to stop attending and that he reviewed
with and answered questions about her personal and corporate tax returns and

documents, prior to her signing the same.” (ECF No. 140, at p. 5.)

47. The Court finds Defendants’ argument persuasive. To prove the claims

for conversion, Movants must show that David was not authorized to make the

Challenged Transactions and the Saddle Transaction. See Variety Wholesalers, Inc.,

365 N.C. at 523. While Bille claims in her affidavit that she did not “know of” or

“approve” the Challenged Transactions and the Saddle Transaction (ECF No.. 130.1,

passim), Defendants have provided at least some evidence that she knew about and

had given David authority to make transfers of funds and assets as he saw fit. Bille

was the sole shareholder and owner of the Bille Entities and, therefore, she was free

to do what she wished with the funds. See L. R. Schmaus Co. v. Commissioner, 406

F.2d 1044, 1045 (7th Cir. 1969) (“[I]f an officer of the company owns all the stock, he

may use the corporate assets as he sees fit and there can be no misappropriation of

corporate assets by him.”).

48. The facts are in dispute as to whether Bille authorized the transactions

and a jury will need to determine the truth of the matter. Movants are not entitled

to summary judgment on their claims for conversion. Therefore, to the extent

Movants seek summary judgment in their favor as to the claims for conversion, the

Motion should be DENIED.

D. Breach of contract

49. Movants purport to allege a claim for breach of contract, but fail to allege

the terms of the contract or agreement at issue. (ECF No. 38, at ¶¶ 217–222.)
Instead, they allege only that “Defendants” breached an implied covenant of good

faith in some unidentified contract or agreement. (Id.) Movants’ entire argument in

support of the breach of contract claim in the Mem. in Supp. is as follows:

“[a]lternatively, to the extent that Deborah, David or ARG contend the transfers were

a series of loan [sic], then Bille, ERC, and CCI are entitled to be paid back on those

by David, Deborah, and ARG under a breach of contract claim.” (ECF No. 131, at p.

17.)

50. The Court concludes that Movants have failed to identify the undisputed

facts, and have not argued why they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See

Hensley, 193 N.C. App. at 563 (stating that under Rule 56, “the movant bears the

burden of showing that there is no triable issue of fact and that he is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law” (quotations and citation omitted)).

51. Therefore, to the extent Movants seek summary judgment in their favor

as to the claims for breach of contract, the Motion should be DENIED.

E. Unjust enrichment

52. Movants purport to allege a claim for unjust enrichment “in the

alternative” to their claim for conversion. (ECF No. 38, at ¶¶ 30–31.) Movants allege

that Defendants “took certain property of [Bille] and the Bille Entities without

authority, . . . , conferring a benefit on” Defendants; that “[a]t the time of the taking

of the property, and upon discovery of the same, [Bille] and the Bille Entities expected

to be paid back”; and that “[t]o the extent that said conduct does not constitute
conversion, [Bille] and the Bille Entities are entitled to the return of said property,

or the reasonable value of the property.” (Id. at ¶¶ 186, 188, 189.)

53. A claim for unjust enrichment “is neither in tort nor contract but is

described as a claim in quasi contract or a contract implied in law.” Booe v. Shadrick,

322 N.C. 567, 570 (1988). “The general rule of unjust enrichment is that where

services are rendered and expenditures made by one party to or for the benefit of

another, without an express contract to pay, the law will imply a promise to pay a

fair compensation therefor.” Atlantic C. L. R. Co. v. State Highway Comm’n, 268 N.C.

92, 95–96 (1966) (citations omitted). In North Carolina, to recover on a claim

of unjust enrichment, Plaintiff must prove: (1) that it conferred a benefit on another

party; (2) that the other party consciously accepted the benefit; and (3) that the

benefit was not conferred gratuitously or by an interference in the affairs of the other

party. Southeastern Shelter Corp. v. BTU, Inc., 154 N.C. App. 321, 330 (2002).

54. Neither the allegations nor the facts in evidence support a claim for

unjust enrichment. Movants have not alleged that Bille or the Bille Entities conferred

benefits upon Defendants, but, rather, that Defendants took assets belonging to Bille.

In fact, Bille claims she did not know about the Challenged Transactions or the

Saddle Transaction at the time they occurred. Rather, at best, the evidence supports

claims that Defendants wrongfully transferred funds or property belonging to

Movants that Movants believe Defendants should be required to repay. As this Court

has stated:

[a]lleging merely that the Defendants have taken for
themselves some benefit to which Plaintiff believes it is
rightfully entitled does not state a claim for unjust
enrichment. Rather, a claim for unjust enrichment must
be based on a contract implied in law in which one party
has provided a benefit to another, such as goods or services,
for which the first party should rightfully be compensated.
[Plaintiff] does not allege that it conferred a benefit on
Defendants; only that Defendants violated its rights and
thereby obtained some benefit to themselves for which
[Plaintiff] believes it should be awarded damages.

KNC Techs., LLC v. Tutton, 2019 NCBC LEXIS 72, at *36–37 (N.C. Super. Ct. Oct.

9, 2019) (citing Chisum v. Campagna, 2017 NCBC LEXIS 102, at *31–32 (NC Super.

Ct. Nov. 7, 2017)) (unjust enrichment claim dismissed where plaintiff did “not allege

that he conferred any benefit on the [defendants], but rather only that the

[defendants] ‘received’ or ‘wrongfully retained’ benefits from their alleged

misconduct.”); see also Islet Scis., Inc. v. Brighthaven Ventures, LLC, 2017 NCBC

LEXIS 4, at *15–18 (N.C. Super. Ct. Jan. 12, 2017) (holding that an unjust

enrichment claim failed where plaintiff alleged only that it was damaged by

defendants’ conduct and not that it had conferred a benefit on defendant company).

55. The unjust enrichment claim is a repackaging of Movants’ claims for

breach of fiduciary duty and conversion, and neither the undisputed facts nor the law

supports a claim for unjust enrichment in this case. See Islet Scis., Inc., 2017 NCBC

LEXIS 4, at *17–18. Therefore, to the extent Movants seek summary judgment in

their favor as to the claim for unjust enrichment, the Motion should be DENIED.

F. Unfair trade practices

56. Movants also allege that by making the Challenged Transactions and

the Saddle Transaction, Defendants have engaged in unfair or deceptive trade
practices in violation of the UDTPA. (ECF No. 38, at pp. 30–31.) The Court concludes

that the same disputed issues of fact about whether Bille authorized the Challenged

Transactions and the Saddle Transaction also preclude granting summary judgment

in Movant’s favor on the UDTPA claim. Therefore, to the extent Movants seek

summary judgment in their favor as to the claim for unfair or deceptive trade

practices in violation of the UDTPA, the Motion should be DENIED.

G. Defendants’ affirmative defenses

57. In their Answer, Defendants raise defenses of: (i) bad faith, (ii) failure

to mitigate, (iii) the Statute of Frauds, (iv) waiver, laches and tacit acceptance. (ECF

No. 51, at p. 16.) Movants seek summary judgment in their favor and against

Defendants as to the affirmative defenses. (ECF No. 129, at p. 6; ECF No. 130, at pp.

21–22.) Movants contend that the affirmative defenses have no application to the

issues raised by its crossclaims and that Defendants do not have evidence to support

the defenses. (ECF No. 130, at pp. 21–22.) Defendants make no argument in

opposition to Movants’ contentions and provide no evidence in support of their

affirmative defenses. Therefore, the Court concludes that, to the extent Movants seek

summary judgment in their favor on Defendants’ affirmative defenses for bad faith,

failure to mitigate, the Statute of Frauds, and waiver, laches and tacit acceptance,

the Motion should be GRANTED.

IV. CONCLUSION

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED in part, and

DENIED, in part, as follows:
1. David and Deborah’s crossclaims for dissolution of APALP (“First

Claim for Relief”) and appointment of a receiver (“Second Claim for

Relief”) are DISMISSED as MOOT.

2. To the extent Movants seek summary judgment against Deborah as

to their claims for breach of fiduciary duties to Care Centers and

ERC, the Motion is DENIED.

3. To the extent Movants seek summary judgment against David and

Deborah as to TAC’s claim for constructive fraud, the Motion is

DENIED.

4. To the extent Movants seek summary judgment against David as to

Care Centers’, ERC’s, and TAC’s claims for breach of fiduciary duty,

the Motion is DENIED.

5. To the extent Movants seek summary judgment in their favor as to

their claims for conversion, the Motion is DENIED.

6. To the extent Movants seek summary judgment in their favor as to

their claims for breach of contract, the Motion is DENIED.

7. To the extent Movants seek summary judgment in their favor as to

their claim for unjust enrichment, the Motion is DENIED.

8. To the extent Movants seek summary judgment in their favor as to

their claim for unfair or deceptive trade practices in violation of the

UDTPA, the Motion is DENIED.
9. To the extent Movants seek summary judgment in their favor on

Defendants’ affirmative defenses for bad faith, failure to mitigate,

the Statute of Frauds, and waiver, laches, and tacit acceptance, the

Motion is GRANTED.

SO ORDERED, this the 7th day of June, 2021.

/s/ Gregory P. McGuire
Gregory P. McGuire
Special Superior Court Judge for
Complex Business Cases