Archive

• New Legislation Applicable to Attorneys Serving as Trustees in Chapter 45 Foreclosures

  This entry was contributed by Meredith Smith on January 12, 2018 at 7:00 am and is filed under Foreclosures.

  A trustee in a power of sale foreclosure has a fiduciary duty to both the debtor and the creditor.  In re Foreclosure of Vogler Realty, Inc., 365 N.C. 389, 397 (2012).  The trustee must be impartial in the performance of his or her duties as a disinterested third party and may not give an unfair advantage to one party to the detriment of the other.  Id.  See also In re Foreclosure by Goddard & Peterson, PLLC, 789 S.E.2d 835, 841 (2016); In re Foreclosure of Real Property for $143,600.00, 156 N.C. App. 477, 483 (2003).  This duty is recognized in G.S. Chapter 45, which requires that the notice of hearing include a statement that the trustee is a neutral party and, while holding that position, may not advocate for the creditor or the debtor in the foreclosure proceeding.  G.S. 45-21.16(c)(7)(b).

  A trustee may be held liable for breach of fiduciary duty through a civil action brought in district or superior court.  See Goddard, 789 S.E.2d at 841.  If the trustee is an attorney or represented by an attorney, then the attorney also may be subject to sanctions by the N.C. State Bar for violating the N.C. Rules of Professional Conduct.  This includes Rule 1.7(a) which prohibits the common representation of multiple clients if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest.  A number of ethics opinions drafted by the Ethics Committee of the State Bar provide guidance to an attorney serving as or representing a trustee in a power of sale foreclosure.  See CPR 94; CPR 166; CPR 201; CPR 220; CPR 297; CPR 305; RPC 3; RPC 64; RPC 82; RPC 90; 2004 FEO 3; 2008 FEO 11; 2011 FEO 5; 2013 FEO 5; and 2014 FEO 2.

  A new law, Session Law 2017-206, went into effect on August 30, 2017 codifies a number of these opinions. The law contains a modification and addition to G.S. Chapter 45-10 and directly applies to those situations in foreclosure proceedings where an attorney is serving as the trustee.  This post will give some preliminary thoughts on the new law as well as briefly discuss some of the related ethics opinions.  For a more detailed review and application to a particular case in your practice, I would recommend reviewing the full ethics opinions cited herein.

  Continue Reading

• Doctors, Patients, and Arbitration Agreements: The NC Supreme Court’s Ruling in King v. Bryant

  This entry was contributed by Ann Anderson on February 3, 2017 at 7:00 am and is filed under Civil Law, Civil Practice, Dispute Resolution.

  Last Friday the North Carolina Supreme Court issued an opinion that should prick up the ears of any physician, hospital, or healthcare facility that asks its patients to agree to binding arbitration in the event of a dispute.  In King v. Bryant (January 27, 2017), the court’s majority held that a physician was in a fiduciary relationship with a new patient at the time the patient signed an arbitration agreement at his initial intake.  The majority then concluded that, because the physician’s office did not take sufficient measures to disclose the nature and import of the agreement, but instead effectively buried it among other intake papers, the agreement was the product of breach of that fiduciary duty.

  Background. The procedural history of the case is complex, but here are the essential facts and lower-court findings that led to the ruling:

  In 2009, Mr. King was referred to a surgeon, Dr. Bryant, for a hernia repair.  While Mr. King was in the waiting area before meeting Dr. Bryant for the first time, the desk employee asked him to complete forms seeking his medical history and to sign several documents, among which was an arbitration agreement.  This was the routine practice in the office for new patient intake.  After meeting with Dr. Bryant, Mr. King signed another series of health-related and insurance forms.  Believing all the documents to be “just a formality,” he did not read them before signing.  During the surgery, Dr. Bryant injured Mr. King’s distal abdominal aorta, requiring substantial additional hospital treatment and causing significant injury to Mr. King’s right leg and foot.  Mr. King filed a medical malpractice action about two years later. Continue Reading