An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. COA25-156
Filed 5 November 2025
Mecklenburg County, No. 24CV029775-590
ANSHI HOSPITALITY CHARLOTTE LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
WHITNE ROBINSON, Defendant.
Appeal by Defendant from order entered 11 October 2024 by Judge Keith
Smith in Mecklenburg County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 27
August 2025.
Whitne Robinson, pro se Defendant-Appellant.
No brief filed on behalf of Plaintiff-Appellee.
CARPENTER, Judge.
Whitne Robinson (“Defendant”) appeals pro se from the trial court’s 11 October
2024 order (the “Order”) concluding Anshi Hospitality Charlotte LLC (“Plaintiff”) was
entitled to possession of Room 107—a room at Plaintiff’s extended stay hotel formerly
occupied by Defendant (the “Property”). On appeal, Defendant argues: (1) the trial
court erred by violating Defendant’s due process rights by allowing an eviction despite ANSHI HOSP. CHARLOTTE LLC V. ROBINSON
Opinion of the Court
an active injunction; (2) the eviction constituted a retaliatory action; (3) the trial court
erred by dismissing Defendant’s counterclaims under the prior pending action
doctrine; (4) the execution of the eviction writ was procedurally defective and invalid;
and (5) the trial court’s findings were influenced by fraud or misrepresentation
justifying relief under Rule 60. After careful review of the record, we dismiss
Defendant’s appeal as interlocutory.
I. Factual & Procedural Background
This appeal concerns a summary ejectment action filed by Plaintiff against
Defendant and all other occupants of the Property. Prior to Plaintiff’s summary
ejectment action, Defendant filed a lawsuit against Plaintiff in Mecklenburg County
District Court asserting claims for breach of contract, retaliatory eviction, fraud,
stalking or harassment, and emotional distress. The events giving rise to the two
concurrent actions are as follows.
Plaintiff owns and operates an extended-stay hotel in Charlotte, North
Carolina and rents rooms at a daily rate based on individual agreements with
tenants. In the spring of 2024, Defendant reserved the Property for a period of thirty
days at a rate of $45.49 per day. Defendant’s thirty-day stay was to begin on 15
March 2024 and end on 15 April 2024. Defendant made two lump-sum payments
totaling $1,625.33 to cover the cost of her stay. On 15 April 2024, Defendant
“extended [her] departure date . . . due to a credit of $169.65 remaining on [her]
account.” Once these funds were exhausted, Defendant remained in possession of the
-2- ANSHI HOSP. CHARLOTTE LLC V. ROBINSON
Property and continued to make payments at the $45.49 daily rental rate.
On 2 May 2024, Plaintiff raised the daily rental rate from $45.49 per day to
$65.00 per day. Defendant continued to make payments at the original daily rental
rate of $45.49. When Defendant stopped making payments, Plaintiff sent Defendant
a notice of non-payment and ten-day demand to pay or quit on 21 May 2024. On 28
May 2024, after receiving the notice, Defendant filed the lawsuit against Plaintiff.
On 14 June 2024, Plaintiff requested an extension of time to file its answer, which
was allowed by the trial court. That same day, Plaintiff sent Defendant a notice of
termination and non-renewal of the lease. In the notice, Plaintiff requested that
Defendant voluntarily surrender and vacate the Property on or before 21 June 2024.
Defendant did not vacate, and on 23 June 2024, Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant
demanding she surrender and vacate the Property.
On 28 June 2024, Plaintiff filed the summary ejectment action—the subject of
this appeal—in small claims court demanding possession of the Property from
Defendant. Plaintiff alleged the lease term ended on 21 June 2024, and that
Defendant, who continued to remain in possession of the Property, was a holdover
tenant. In response, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss alleging lack of personal
jurisdiction, insufficiency of process, insufficiency of service of process, and failure to
state a claim. On 7 July 2024, the magistrate denied Defendant’s motion. On 10 July
2024, Defendant filed another motion to dismiss. This time, Defendant argued
Plaintiff’s summary ejectment action was retaliatory in nature and requested that
-3- ANSHI HOSP. CHARLOTTE LLC V. ROBINSON
the small claims court dismiss the summary ejectment action pursuant to section 42-
37.1 of our General Statutes, which provides that a tenant may raise the affirmative
defense of retaliatory eviction in response to an action for summary ejectment. See
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 42-37.1(b) (2023). On 22 July 2024, Defendant filed her answer,
asserting breach of contract and estoppel as affirmative defenses, and retaliatory
eviction as a counterclaim.
On 26 July 2024, the magistrate entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff and
granted Plaintiff possession of the Property. On 31 July 2024, Defendant appealed
to Mecklenburg County District Court. On 1 August 2024, Defendant filed a motion
to stay execution of the judgment and requested that the trial court set a bond
amount. On 12 August 2024, a writ of possession was issued for the Property. The
next day, Defendant filed an emergency motion requesting the trial court stay
execution of the writ of possession, and issue a temporary restraining order (“TRO”)
and preliminary injunction to prevent Plaintiff from enforcing the writ of possession.
The trial court granted Defendant’s motions for TRO and preliminary injunction. In
the TRO, the trial court required Defendant to post a bond of $50.00. Later, in the
order granting Defendant’s request for preliminary injunction, the trial court
adjusted the amount to $70.00 to be paid monthly.
On 28 August 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to modify the rent bond. On 6
September 2024, Defendant filed a motion objecting to Plaintiff’s motion to modify
the rent bond. On 12 September 2024, Defendant filed a motion to consolidate the
-4- ANSHI HOSP. CHARLOTTE LLC V. ROBINSON
summary ejectment action and Defendant’s action filed on 28 May 2024. In support
of her motion, Defendant asserted that both cases involved common issues of law and
fact and the consolidation of the cases would promote judicial economy and efficiency.
On 11 October 2024, following a hearing, the trial court entered the Order
concluding Plaintiff was entitled to possession of the Property. In the Order, the trial
court noted Defendant’s counterclaim “was not heard . . . and shall be re-calendared.”
On 16 October 2024, Defendant filed a motion for the trial court to amend the findings
of fact and conclusions of law in the Order and requested that the trial court return
all rent bonds previously paid. On 29 October 2024, a writ of possession was issued
for the Property. Later that day, Defendant filed an emergency motion for TRO and
preliminary injunction. On 31 October 2024, the trial court entered an order denying
Defendant’s motion. A few hours later, Defendant again filed an emergency motion
for TRO and preliminary injunction.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. COA25-156
Filed 5 November 2025
Mecklenburg County, No. 24CV029775-590
ANSHI HOSPITALITY CHARLOTTE LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
WHITNE ROBINSON, Defendant.
Appeal by Defendant from order entered 11 October 2024 by Judge Keith
Smith in Mecklenburg County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 27
August 2025.
Whitne Robinson, pro se Defendant-Appellant.
No brief filed on behalf of Plaintiff-Appellee.
CARPENTER, Judge.
Whitne Robinson (“Defendant”) appeals pro se from the trial court’s 11 October
2024 order (the “Order”) concluding Anshi Hospitality Charlotte LLC (“Plaintiff”) was
entitled to possession of Room 107—a room at Plaintiff’s extended stay hotel formerly
occupied by Defendant (the “Property”). On appeal, Defendant argues: (1) the trial
court erred by violating Defendant’s due process rights by allowing an eviction despite ANSHI HOSP. CHARLOTTE LLC V. ROBINSON
Opinion of the Court
an active injunction; (2) the eviction constituted a retaliatory action; (3) the trial court
erred by dismissing Defendant’s counterclaims under the prior pending action
doctrine; (4) the execution of the eviction writ was procedurally defective and invalid;
and (5) the trial court’s findings were influenced by fraud or misrepresentation
justifying relief under Rule 60. After careful review of the record, we dismiss
Defendant’s appeal as interlocutory.
I. Factual & Procedural Background
This appeal concerns a summary ejectment action filed by Plaintiff against
Defendant and all other occupants of the Property. Prior to Plaintiff’s summary
ejectment action, Defendant filed a lawsuit against Plaintiff in Mecklenburg County
District Court asserting claims for breach of contract, retaliatory eviction, fraud,
stalking or harassment, and emotional distress. The events giving rise to the two
concurrent actions are as follows.
Plaintiff owns and operates an extended-stay hotel in Charlotte, North
Carolina and rents rooms at a daily rate based on individual agreements with
tenants. In the spring of 2024, Defendant reserved the Property for a period of thirty
days at a rate of $45.49 per day. Defendant’s thirty-day stay was to begin on 15
March 2024 and end on 15 April 2024. Defendant made two lump-sum payments
totaling $1,625.33 to cover the cost of her stay. On 15 April 2024, Defendant
“extended [her] departure date . . . due to a credit of $169.65 remaining on [her]
account.” Once these funds were exhausted, Defendant remained in possession of the
-2- ANSHI HOSP. CHARLOTTE LLC V. ROBINSON
Property and continued to make payments at the $45.49 daily rental rate.
On 2 May 2024, Plaintiff raised the daily rental rate from $45.49 per day to
$65.00 per day. Defendant continued to make payments at the original daily rental
rate of $45.49. When Defendant stopped making payments, Plaintiff sent Defendant
a notice of non-payment and ten-day demand to pay or quit on 21 May 2024. On 28
May 2024, after receiving the notice, Defendant filed the lawsuit against Plaintiff.
On 14 June 2024, Plaintiff requested an extension of time to file its answer, which
was allowed by the trial court. That same day, Plaintiff sent Defendant a notice of
termination and non-renewal of the lease. In the notice, Plaintiff requested that
Defendant voluntarily surrender and vacate the Property on or before 21 June 2024.
Defendant did not vacate, and on 23 June 2024, Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant
demanding she surrender and vacate the Property.
On 28 June 2024, Plaintiff filed the summary ejectment action—the subject of
this appeal—in small claims court demanding possession of the Property from
Defendant. Plaintiff alleged the lease term ended on 21 June 2024, and that
Defendant, who continued to remain in possession of the Property, was a holdover
tenant. In response, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss alleging lack of personal
jurisdiction, insufficiency of process, insufficiency of service of process, and failure to
state a claim. On 7 July 2024, the magistrate denied Defendant’s motion. On 10 July
2024, Defendant filed another motion to dismiss. This time, Defendant argued
Plaintiff’s summary ejectment action was retaliatory in nature and requested that
-3- ANSHI HOSP. CHARLOTTE LLC V. ROBINSON
the small claims court dismiss the summary ejectment action pursuant to section 42-
37.1 of our General Statutes, which provides that a tenant may raise the affirmative
defense of retaliatory eviction in response to an action for summary ejectment. See
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 42-37.1(b) (2023). On 22 July 2024, Defendant filed her answer,
asserting breach of contract and estoppel as affirmative defenses, and retaliatory
eviction as a counterclaim.
On 26 July 2024, the magistrate entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff and
granted Plaintiff possession of the Property. On 31 July 2024, Defendant appealed
to Mecklenburg County District Court. On 1 August 2024, Defendant filed a motion
to stay execution of the judgment and requested that the trial court set a bond
amount. On 12 August 2024, a writ of possession was issued for the Property. The
next day, Defendant filed an emergency motion requesting the trial court stay
execution of the writ of possession, and issue a temporary restraining order (“TRO”)
and preliminary injunction to prevent Plaintiff from enforcing the writ of possession.
The trial court granted Defendant’s motions for TRO and preliminary injunction. In
the TRO, the trial court required Defendant to post a bond of $50.00. Later, in the
order granting Defendant’s request for preliminary injunction, the trial court
adjusted the amount to $70.00 to be paid monthly.
On 28 August 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to modify the rent bond. On 6
September 2024, Defendant filed a motion objecting to Plaintiff’s motion to modify
the rent bond. On 12 September 2024, Defendant filed a motion to consolidate the
-4- ANSHI HOSP. CHARLOTTE LLC V. ROBINSON
summary ejectment action and Defendant’s action filed on 28 May 2024. In support
of her motion, Defendant asserted that both cases involved common issues of law and
fact and the consolidation of the cases would promote judicial economy and efficiency.
On 11 October 2024, following a hearing, the trial court entered the Order
concluding Plaintiff was entitled to possession of the Property. In the Order, the trial
court noted Defendant’s counterclaim “was not heard . . . and shall be re-calendared.”
On 16 October 2024, Defendant filed a motion for the trial court to amend the findings
of fact and conclusions of law in the Order and requested that the trial court return
all rent bonds previously paid. On 29 October 2024, a writ of possession was issued
for the Property. Later that day, Defendant filed an emergency motion for TRO and
preliminary injunction. On 31 October 2024, the trial court entered an order denying
Defendant’s motion. A few hours later, Defendant again filed an emergency motion
for TRO and preliminary injunction.
On 1 November 2024, Defendant filed written notice of appeal from the Order.
Simultaneously, Defendant filed an emergency ex parte motion for temporary stay of
the Order. On 4 November 2024, the trial court entered an order denying the motion
for TRO and preliminary injunction filed by Defendant on 31 October 2024. On 5
November 2024, Defendant was evicted from the Property. On 25 November 2024,
Defendant filed a motion for relief under Rule 60(b).
II. Jurisdiction
As an initial matter, we consider whether this Court has jurisdiction to address
-5- ANSHI HOSP. CHARLOTTE LLC V. ROBINSON
Defendant’s appeal. “Generally, there is no right of immediate appeal from
interlocutory orders and judgments.” Goldston v. Am. Motors Corp., 326 N.C. 723,
725, 392 S.E.2d 735, 736 (1990). Instead, “this Court only hears appeals after a final
judgment.” Ayala v. Perry, 298 N.C. App. 134, 137, 913 S.E.2d 271, 275 (2025) (citing
Denney v. Wardson Constr., Inc., 264 N.C. App. 15, 17, 824 S.E.2d 436, 438 (2019)).
“An order is interlocutory if it does not determine the entire controversy between all
of the parties.” Abe v. Westview Cap., L.C., 130 N.C. App. 332, 334, 502 S.E.2d 879,
881 (1998) (citing Veazey v. City of Durham, 231 N.C. 357, 362, 57 S.E.2d 377, 381
(1950)).
But an interlocutory order is immediately appealable if it is “a final judgment
as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only if there is no just
reason for delay and it is so determined in the judgment.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1,
Rule 54(b) (2023). Under Rule 54, the trial court must certify that there is no just
reason to delay the appeal. See James River Equip., Inc. v. Tharpe’s Excavating, Inc.,
179 N.C. App. 336, 339–40, 634 S.E.2d 548, 552 (2006). Additionally, a party may
appeal from an interlocutory order “when the challenged order affects a substantial
right.” Denney, 264 N.C. App. at 17, 824 S.E.2d at 438; see N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-
27(b)(3)(a) (2023) (providing a party may immediately appeal an interlocutory order
or judgment that affects a substantial right).
Here, Defendant’s appeal is interlocutory because it does not determine the
entire controversy. See Abe, 130 N.C. App. at 334, 502 S.E.2d at 881. In her answer
-6- ANSHI HOSP. CHARLOTTE LLC V. ROBINSON
to Plaintiff’s complaint, Defendant asserted breach of contract and estoppel as
affirmative defenses and retaliatory eviction as a counterclaim. According to the
Order, Defendant’s counterclaim “was not heard . . . and shall be re-calendared.”
Because the trial court did not consider or rule on that claim, the Order is
interlocutory. See id. at 334, 502 S.E.2d at 881. The trial court did not certify the
Order for immediate review and Defendant did not assert that the Order affects a
substantial right. Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to review Defendant’s appeal.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as interlocutory.
III. Conclusion
Defendant’s appeal is interlocutory and neither exception to the general rule
against interlocutory appeals applies. Accordingly, we dismiss Defendant’s appeal.
DISMISSED.
Judges GRIFFIN and MURRY concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
-7-