Denver Prop. Partners, LLC v. Sisson

Denver Prop. Partners, LLC v. Sisson, 2019 NCBC 22.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
LINCOLN COUNTY 18 CVS 725

DENVER PROPERTY PARTNERS,
LLC; and BAYPORT HOLDINGS,
INC. d/b/a DENVER DEFENSE
RANGE & FIREARMS,

Plaintiffs,

v.
ORDER AND OPINION
BRIAN P. SISSON; LAKE NORMAN ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SPORTING ARMS AND RANGE, PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
INC. d/b/a THE RANGE AT LAKE
NORMAN, d/b/a THE RANGE AT
BALLANTYNE, d/b/a PINEVILLE
GUN SHOP; and THE RANGE AT
DENVER, INC.,

Defendants.

1. THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Partial

Summary Judgment (the “Motion”) filed on January 18, 2019.1 (ECF No. 30.)

Defendants seek summary judgment in their favor pursuant to Rule 56 of the North

Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule(s)”) on Plaintiffs’ first claim for relief (breach

of contract). For the reasons stated herein, the Court GRANTS the Motion.

Elliott Law Firm, PC, by Michael Elliott, for Plaintiffs.

Sisson Law Firm, PLLC, by Kevin M. Sisson, and The McIntosh Law
Firm P.C., by Joel M. Bondurant, for Defendants.

Robinson, Judge.

1
The Court held a hearing on the Motion on March 28, 2019 at which all parties were
represented by counsel. The Motion has been fully briefed and is now ripe for resolution.
I. INTRODUCTION

2. The Court does not make findings of fact when ruling on motions for

summary judgment. See In re Estate of Pope, 192 N.C. App. 321, 329, 666 S.E.2d 140,

147 (2008) (citation omitted). The factual background contained herein, taken from

the evidence submitted in support of and in opposition to the Motion, is intended

solely to provide context for the Court’s analysis and ruling.

3. This litigation arises out of failed negotiations between Plaintiffs Denver

Property Partners, LLC and Bayport Holdings Inc. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), and

Defendants Brian P. Sisson (“Sisson”) and The Range at Denver, Inc. (“TRD”) for the

purchase of real property and other assets used and owned by Plaintiffs to operate an

indoor shooting range and firearms retail store, Denver Defense Range & Firearms

(“DDRF”). As a part of those negotiations, on or about December 28, 2017, Plaintiffs

and Sisson entered into a Management Agreement whereby Sisson agreed to manage

DDRF. The parties understood that this agreement allowed Sisson to run DDRF

while simultaneously engaging in due diligence efforts to determine whether he

ultimately wanted to purchase the business. After several months of running DDRF,

on or around May 15, 2018, Sisson advised Plaintiffs that he no longer was interested

in purchasing the business or managing Plaintiffs’ operations, and this litigation

quickly ensued.

4. Plaintiffs’ Complaint includes seven (7) separate causes of action

addressing a number of alleged acts of misconduct related to Sisson’s oversight of

Plaintiffs’ operations and his decision not to go through with the purchase of DDRF.
Defendants seek, by the Motion, dismissal with prejudice of only one of those seven

claims: Plaintiffs’ first claim for breach of contract of an alleged written Purchase of

Business Agreement (the “PBA”), dated February 5, 2018. Plaintiffs contend that the

PBA, if enforceable, would obligate TRD to pay $3.3 million for Plaintiffs’ real

property and business assets.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

5. Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers

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

that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled

to a judgment as a matter of law.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c). “A genuine

issue is one that can be maintained by substantial evidence.” Dobson v. Harris, 352

N.C. 77, 83, 530 S.E.2d 829, 835 (2000) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

6. The moving party bears the burden of showing 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, 668 S.E.2d 349, 351

(2008). The movant may make the required showing by proving that “an essential

element of the opposing party’s claim does not exist . . . or by showing through

discovery that the opposing party cannot produce evidence to support an essential

element of [its] claim.” Dobson, 352 N.C. at 83, 530 S.E.2d at 835 (citations omitted).

7. “Once the party seeking summary judgment makes the required showing,

the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to produce a forecast of evidence

demonstrating specific facts, as opposed to allegations, showing that he can at least
establish a prima facie case at trial.” Gaunt v. Pittaway, 139 N.C. App. 778, 784−85,

534 S.E.2d 660, 664 (2000). The Court must view the evidence in the light most

favorable to the nonmovant. Dobson, 352 N.C. at 83, 530 S.E.2d at 835. However,

the nonmovant

may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but
his response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set
forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If [the
nonmovant] does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate,
shall be entered against [the nonmovant].

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 56(e).

III. DISCUSSION

8. The Motion is premised principally on the contention, supported by sworn

affidavit testimony and other record evidence properly considered on a Rule 56

motion, that Plaintiffs and TRD, through its agent Sisson, never actually entered into

the PBA for the sale of DDRF.

9. Defendants’ position relies upon the sworn deposition testimony of Joseph

Vagnone (“Vagnone”), the broker retained by Plaintiffs to sell the business, as well as

an e-mail chain between Sisson, Robert Watson (“Watson”), a representative for

Plaintiffs, and Watson’s attorney. The testimony and e-mail chain evidence the

following relevant communications between the parties:

a. At some point on February 5, 2018, Watson e-mailed Vagnone asking if

he could get “the signed asset purchase agreement” from Sisson. (Pls.’

Mem. L. Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. for Partial Summ. J. Ex. A, at 63:23−63:25,

ECF No. 34 [“Vagnone Dep.”].) Vagnone forwarded Watson’s e-mail to
Sisson, and Sisson replied that he believed he had a copy of it, but that

“[i]t would be at home. I will send it this evening.” (Vagnone Dep.

64:2−64:12.)

b. That evening at 7:11 p.m., Sisson e-mailed Watson, stating: “[w]e do not

have a purchase agreement in place. Attached is a draft, if it is good for

you, sign and send back and i [sic] will then sign[.]” (See Defs.’ Opp’n to

Emergency Mot. Ex. A, at Ex. A, ECF No. 11 [“Sisson Aff.”].) Sisson’s e-

mail was factually inaccurate in the sense that, while Sisson said

Watson should sign and send the document back for him to sign, Sisson

had already signed and dated the PBA before sending it to Watson. (See

Reply Br. Supp. Emergency Mot. Ex. H, at 17:2–18:18, ECF No. 13

[“Sisson Dep.”].)

c. The next day, February 6, 2018, at 8:50 a.m., Watson forwarded Sisson’s

e-mail to his attorney and asked for him to review the proposed terms of

the PBA. (Sisson Aff. Ex. A.) Watson’s attorney responded at 4:11 p.m.

that same day, stating that the agreement was “fine as written with one

change. Since this purports to be covering the land/building and the

inventory, etc. the seller(s) need to be Bayport Holdings, Inc. and Denver

Property Partners, LLC.” (Sisson Aff. Ex. A.)

d. Watson then forwarded this e-mail from his attorney to Sisson at 4:46

p.m. on February 6, 2018, stating: “Brian, need to put in the effective

date 12/31/17 along with the current date is fine for the agreement [sic].
My attorney says because there are 2 companies below that both need

to be added unless you have a reason to keep it that way.” (Sisson Aff.

Ex. A.)

e. Sisson responded to Watson’s e-mail on February 6 at 5:19 p.m.,

attaching a Microsoft Word version of the PBA and indicating to Watson

that he could “modify as needed[.]” (Sisson Aff. Ex. A.)

10. The parties did not engage in further negotiations or exchange additional

drafts of the PBA. (Sisson Aff. ¶ 2; Sisson Dep. 21:17−22:7.) The record is devoid of

any evidence tending to indicate that Watson signed the PBA around February 2018

and sent it to Sisson or that Watson, or anyone else on behalf of Plaintiffs, advised

Sisson that they had accepted the PBA as originally drafted. Nonetheless, Exhibit A

to Plaintiffs’ Complaint attaches a fully executed copy of the PBA, bearing both

Watson’s and Sisson’s signatures. (Compl. Ex. A, at 17, ECF No. 3 [“PBA”].)

11. Both the PBA Sisson sent to Watson on February 5, 2018 and the PBA

attached to the Complaint name the seller to the contract as “Denver Defense Gun

Range” (the “Seller”) and “The Range at Denver Inc [sic]” as the purchaser (the

“Purchaser”). (PBA 1.) Pursuant to the PBA, “the Seller agree[d] to sell [DDRF’s]

[a]ssets to the Purchaser and the Purchaser agree[d] to purchase the [a]ssets from

the Seller.” (PBA ¶ 2.) Seller’s assets were defined as: “all equipment used in

carrying on the Seller[’s]” business; all inventory and packaging; all books, records,

and files relevant to carrying on Seller’s business; “title to registered or unregistered

trade marks [sic] and trade names”; Seller’s goodwill, including the business name;
and Seller’s building and land.” (PBA ¶ 1(a).) The PBA set the closing date for the

transaction as March 31, 2018 and set the purchase price at $3.3 million. (PBA ¶¶ 3,

5.)

12. Plaintiffs allege that Sisson and TRD breached the PBA by failing, without

excuse, to purchase Plaintiffs’ land and other assets for $3.3 million on or before the

closing date set by the PBA. (Compl. ¶¶ 26–27.)

13. As an initial matter, with respect to Plaintiffs’ claim for breach of the PBA

against Sisson, although Sisson’s signature appears on the document, Sisson was not

a party to the PBA. The PBA identifies “Denver Defense Gun Range” as Seller and

TRD as Purchaser. (PBA 1.) The signature page of the PBA further demonstrates

that Sisson signed the document as an agent of TRD, not individually. (PBA 17.) “It

is a fundamental principal of contract law that parties to a contract may bind only

themselves and . . . may not bind a third person who is not a party to the contract in

the absence of his consent to be bound.” Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Chantos, 293

N.C. 431, 438, 238 S.E.2d 597, 602–03 (1977) (citation omitted). Accordingly, to the

extent Plaintiffs claim Sisson breached the PBA, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs

have come forward with no evidence to substantiate such a claim, and Sisson is

entitled to summary judgment in his favor on this claim. Accordingly, the Court

GRANTS the Motion as it relates to Sisson and DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ first claim for

relief against Sisson.

14. Turning to Plaintiffs’ first claim as it relates to TRD, a breach of contract

requires the existence of a valid contract and a breach of the terms thereof. Poor v.
Hill, 138 N.C. App. 19, 26, 530 S.E.2d 838, 843 (2000) (citation omitted). “The essence

of any contract is the mutual assent of both parties to the terms of the

agreement . . . .” Snyder v. Freeman, 300 N.C. 204, 218, 266 S.E.2d 593, 602 (1980)

(citation omitted); see also Normile v. Miller, 313 N.C. 98, 103, 326 S.E.2d 11, 15

(1985) (“It is axiomatic that a valid contract between two parties can only exist when

the parties assent to the same thing in the same sense, and their minds meet as to

all terms.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)).

15. “Ordinarily one party, by making an offer, assents in advance; the other,

upon learning of the offer, assents by accepting it and thereby forms the contract.”

Schwarz v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 802 S.E.2d 783, 789 (N.C. Ct. App. 2017) (quoting

Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 23 cmt. a).

If the terms of the offer are changed or any new ones added by the
acceptance, there is no meeting of the minds and, consequently, no
contract. This counteroffer amounts to a rejection of the original offer.
The reason is that the counteroffer is interpreted as being in effect the
statement by the offeree not only that he will enter into the transaction
on the terms stated in his counteroffer, but also by implication that he
will not assent to the terms of the original offer.

Normile, 313 N.C. at 103, 326 S.E.2d at 15 (internal citations and quotation marks

omitted).

16. The materials submitted to the Court reveal that Sisson’s e-mail presented

Plaintiffs with an offer for TRD to purchase the assets in question for $3.3 million.

Watson’s February 6, 2018 e-mail response requesting that an effective date and

parties be added to the contract amounted to a counteroffer and, thus, a rejection of

TRD’s offer. Sisson’s response forwarding the Microsoft Word version of the PBA and
instructing Watson to “modify as needed” invited Plaintiffs to present TRD with a

counteroffer.

17. Plaintiffs have presented no evidence that the parties engaged in further

discussions or exchanged further drafts after the above-referenced e-mail exchange.

Further, the PBA submitted to the Court by Plaintiffs contains neither Plaintiffs’

requested effective date nor the correction of the parties to the contract. (See

generally PBA.) In addition, the evidence before the Court is undisputed that Sisson

executed the PBA on February 5, 2018, the day before Watson rejected TRD’s offer.

(See Sisson Aff. Ex. A.)

18. Plaintiffs have also failed to provide admissible evidence to indicate when

Watson, on behalf of Plaintiffs, signed the version of the PBA attached to the

Complaint. Defendants, on the other hand, have provided the Court, through

affidavits and exhibits thereto, with admissible evidence that Watson did not sign the

PBA prior to rejecting TRD’s offer on February 6, 2018.

19. Upon the filing of the Motion and Defendants’ submission to the Court of

admissible evidence that, rather than accept the offer contained in the PBA, Plaintiffs

rejected the offer by requesting changes thereto, Plaintiffs were obligated to come

forward with admissible evidence from which the Court could find that a material

issue of disputed fact existed as to Defendants’ forecast of evidence. See Gaunt, 139

N.C. App. at 784−85, 534 S.E.2d at 664. Plaintiffs have failed to do so.

20. Accordingly, the uncontroverted evidence shows that on and after February

6, 2018, Watson lacked the power to accept Sisson’s draft of the PBA (submitted on
behalf of TRD) and therefore, regardless of whether Watson signed the version of the

PBA attached to the Complaint on February 6, 2018 at 4:47 p.m. (a minute after his

rejection) or months later, there was no meeting of the minds as to the execution of

that specific agreement. As a result, the Court concludes that the PBA, attached as

Exhibit A to Plaintiffs’ Complaint, is not an enforceable agreement and Defendants’

partial motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiffs’ first claim regarding TRD’s

breach of the PBA should be granted.

21. Defendants set forth an additional argument that, if the Court were to find

there was a valid acceptance of the PBA, the Motion should nonetheless be granted

based on Plaintiffs’ failure to satisfy the conditions precedent or representations and

warranties contained in the PBA. Because the Court finds that there was no valid

acceptance of the PBA, and therefore no enforceable agreement, it need not reach and

does not decide Defendants’ second basis for summary judgment.

IV. CONCLUSION

22. THEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the Motion in its entirety. Plaintiffs’

first claim brought against Sisson and TRD for alleged breach of the PBA is

DISMISSED with prejudice.

SO ORDERED, this the 1st day of April, 2019.

/s/ Michael L. Robinson
Michael L. Robinson
Special Superior Court Judge
for Complex Business Cases