Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/07/2018

Home

April 25, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 8 Zoning Bulletin ate the litigation. The City pointed to evidence that neither Willowmere nor Nottingham explicitly authorized filing the legal action during a meeting with a quorum of directors present, either in person or by telephone. Finding there were no material issues of fact in dispute, and deciding the matter on the law alone, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the City. The trial court agreed with the City that the As- sociations lacked standing because each had failed to comply with their corporate bylaws when bringing the lawsuit. The Associations appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Associations again appealed. DECISION: Judgment of Court of Appeals reversed, and matter remanded. The Supreme Court of North Carolina held that the homeowners' Associations had standing to bring the legal action, which challenged a City ordinance that rezoned parcels abutting land owned by the Associations. As a matter of first impression (i.e., the first time address- ing the legal issue), the court held that the Associations were not, in or- der to have standing, required to affirmatively plead, or prove, their compliance with their corporate bylaws and internal rules relating to their decision to initiate the action. In so holding the court explained that the North Carolina Constitu- tion confers standing on those who suffer an injury in their "lands, goods, person, or reputation." The court also explained that legal enti- ties other than natural persons —such as associations —may also have standing if the association or one of its members suffers some immedi- ate or threatened injury. Specifically, associations must meet certain elements to having standing: (1) "its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right"; (2) "the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization's purpose"; and (3) "neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit." Here, the courtfound that there was no dispute as to whether the As- sociations had met the elements of associational standing. Instead, the City had contended that by failing to follow their corporate bylaws, the Associations' boards of directors "had no authority to act on behalf of [the Associations] in filing and prosecuting this lawsuit." The Supreme Court of North Carolina rejected the idea that a stranger to the Associations (i.e., here, the City) could assert that the Associations' failures to abide by their own bylaws necessitated dis- missal of the Associations' legal complaint for lack of standing. More- over, the court found no evidence that any member of either associa- tion opposed the association's prosecution of the lawsuit. Even if a 10 © 2018 Thomson Reuters