Story Homes Constr Llc V Nc Licensing Bd For Gen Contractors

Key Facts

Issues

• Whether the Respondent's issuance of subpoenas seven days before the hearing and Petitioners' requested subpoenas issued after 5:00 p.m. the day before constituted manifest unfairness or arbitrary and capricious conduct, including whether this violated procedural requirements under the Rules of Civil Procedure or 21 N.C.A.C. 12A.0827(a)(1)-(4).
• Whether the Court of Appeals properly affirmed the superior court's decision that the North Carolina Licensing Board's Final Agency Decision against Story Homes Construction, LLC was arbitrary and capricious, including whether the decision was unsupported by evidence, misconstrued stipulations, imposed disproportionate punishment, or involved manifest unfairness regarding subpoena procedures.
• Whether it constituted an error of law for the Respondent to assert that Petitioners failed to disclose investigations that the Respondent was already aware of, specifically regarding Story Homes' license renewal application where they answered 'no' to questions about pending investigations despite having notice of Barbour's complaints.
• Whether the eighteen-month suspension (six months active, twelve months stayed) and $15,000 monetary fine imposed against Story Homes Construction, LLC were proportional to the findings of fact and evidence presented, specifically regarding the license lapse from March 1, 2019 to June 10, 2019 and failure to disclose pending complaints on the renewal application.

Holdings

Remedies

Legal Principles

• The North Carolina Administrative Procedure Act provides two standards of review for agency decisions: de novo review for errors of law including constitutional violations, excess of authority, unlawful procedure, or legal errors; and the 'whole record' test for arbitrary, capricious, or abuse of discretion claims. Under de novo review, courts substitute their own judgment but defer to the tribunal's findings of fact. Under the whole record test, courts examine the entire record including detracting evidence to determine if the agency decision has a rational basis in the evidence.
• Stipulations made during administrative hearings are judicial admissions that bind the parties absent well-established exceptions. Once a stipulation is made, a party cannot later take an inconsistent position. When counsel states they are stipulating to charges without qualification, and does not object to admission of supporting evidence, the stipulation is binding.
• Petitioners bear the burden to demonstrate that an administrative decision was arbitrary or capricious. The arbitrary or capricious standard is difficult to meet, requiring proof that the decision was patently in bad faith, whimsical, or lacked fair and careful consideration.

Precedent Name

• Early
• Greens of Pine Glen Ltd.
• Harper
• Comstock
• Wetherington
• Rural Plumbing
• Walker
• Quesinberry
• Carroll
• Teague
• McElwee
• Brown
• Mann Media
• Moore

Cited Statute

• North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 7A Section 27(b)(1)
• North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 87 Section (a)
• North Carolina Administrative Procedure Act Section 150B-51
• North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 150B Section 39(a)
• North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 87 Section 13

Judge Name

• Judge Hampson
• Judge Tyson
• Judge Flood

Passage Text

• Petitioners' counsel stated, 'we are stipulating to those charges' and did not qualify the stipulation. Petitioners counsel also did not object to Respondent's counsel's characterizing the stipulation and Respondent allowing the stipulation with the supporting exhibits.
• Petitioners have failed to show Respondent's final decision was arbitrary or capricious or affected by errors of law. The superior court did not err in affirming Respondent's final decision. The order of the superior court is affirmed.
• Story Homes Construction, LLC and Aaron Thomas Guess appeal from order affirming the decision of the North Carolina Licensing Board for General Contractors. We affirm.