An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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. COA24-99
Filed 5 November 2025
Mecklenburg County, No. 21CVS018165-590
SLOK, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
COURTSIDE CONDOMINIUM OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Defendant.
Appeal by plaintiff from orders entered 26 October 2022, 22 November 2022,
and 28 December 2022 by Judge George Bell; 27 February 2023 by Judge David
Strickland; and 30 June 2023 by Judge Donald R. Cureton, Jr., in Mecklenburg
County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 12 August 2025.
Gray, Layton, Kersh, Solomon, Furr & Smith, P.A., by William E. Moore, Jr., for plaintiff-appellant.
Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP, by Daniel E. Peterson, and Sellers, Ayers, Dortch & Lyons, PA, by Michelle Massingale Dressler, for defendant-appellee.
ZACHARY, Judge.
Plaintiff SLOK, LLC, (“SLOK”) appeals from several of the trial court’s orders,
including the court’s order granting the motions to dismiss and for summary
judgment filed by Defendant Courtside Condominium Owners Association, Inc. (the SLOK, LLC V. COURTSIDE CONDO. OWNERS ASS’N, INC.
Opinion of the Court
“Owners Association”). After careful review, we affirm.
I. Background
This long-running saga arrives at this Court for review for a fourth time. See
SLOK, LLC v. Courtside Condo. Owners Ass’n (“SLOK I”), 265 N.C. App. 111, 826
S.E.2d 580, 2019 WL 1749031 (unpublished), disc. rev. denied, 372 N.C. 706, 830
S.E.2d 825 (2019); SLOK, LLC v. Courtside Condo. Owners Ass’n (“SLOK II”), 279
N.C. App. 512, 862 S.E.2d 438, 2021 WL 4272876 (2021) (unpublished); In re SLOK,
LLC (“SLOK III”), 283 N.C. App. 327, 871 S.E.2d 418, 2022 WL 1311686 (2022)
(unpublished). The full factual background of this matter can be found in those prior
opinions; we recite here only those facts necessary for the appeal before us.
The Owners Association, a non-profit corporation, maintains and administers
a Charlotte condominium complex comprising 106 residential units and one
commercial unit. SLOK I, 2019 WL 1749031 at *1. The Owners Association is
governed in accordance with the Declaration of Condominium for Courtside
Condominium (“Declaration”). Id. SLOK is the current owner of the commercial unit.
Id. In 2012, the Owners Association and the then-owner of the commercial unit
executed an amendment to the Declaration (“the 2012 Amendment”) that established
a new commercial trash room as a limited common element for the exclusive use of
the commercial unit. Id. at *1–*2. The Owners Association assumed responsibility for
the maintenance, repair, and operation of the commercial trash room while the
commercial unit’s owner agreed to be responsible for the associated costs. Id. at *2.
-2- SLOK, LLC V. COURTSIDE CONDO. OWNERS ASS’N, INC.
Upon purchasing the commercial unit in 2014, SLOK failed to pay assessments
for the costs associated with the commercial trash room. Id. at *1–*2. The Owners
Association commenced a foreclosure proceeding, which was dismissed upon SLOK’s
payment of the outstanding assessments; the Owners Association also fined SLOK
for violations of certain terms of the Declaration. Id. at *2. SLOK filed suit against
the Owners Association in 2017, but the trial court granted summary judgment in
favor of the Owners Association and, inter alia, authorized the Owners Association to
proceed with judicial foreclosure in the event that SLOK failed to remove personal
property from the commercial trash room and pay the assessed fines. Id. at *2–*4.
In SLOK I, this Court concluded that SLOK was estopped from challenging the
validity of the 2012 Amendment and the assessments, id. at *4–*5, and affirmed the
grant of summary judgment in favor of the Owners Association as to SLOK’s claims
alleging the denial of its rights regarding participation in the Owners Association’s
board and the withholding of access to common areas and mailboxes, id. at *6.
However, we agreed with SLOK that the portion of the summary-judgment order
authorizing judicial foreclosure if SLOK failed to pay the fines and remove personal
property within 30 days of the order’s entry was void as a conditional order. Id. at *8.
On remand, the trial court affirmed the judicial foreclosure in an order for
attorney’s fees; this Court subsequently reversed the order as to the foreclosure and
again remanded. SLOK II, 2021 WL 4272876 at *6–*7. Although SLOK paid its
outstanding assessments and fines during the pendency of SLOK I and II, its
-3- SLOK, LLC V. COURTSIDE CONDO. OWNERS ASS’N, INC.
assessment charges continued to accrue and the Owners Association again sought
foreclosure. SLOK III, 2022 WL 1311686 at *1–*2. The Mecklenburg County Clerk of
Superior Court entered an order authorizing the foreclosure in 2019, which the trial
court affirmed. Id. at *1. In SLOK III, this Court held that the doctrine of res judicata
barred SLOK from relitigating the validity of the 2012 Amendment or the Owners
Association’s accounting regarding SLOK’s debt, and affirmed the trial court’s
affirmance of the order of foreclosure. Id. at *2–*3.
On 28 October 2021, while SLOK III was pending before this Court, the
Owners Association recorded another amendment to the Declaration (“the 2021
Amendment”). The 2021 Amendment added a noise-level restriction and provided
that the Owners Association had the right to suspend water services to a unit if its
owner was delinquent in the payment of any assessment for more than 120 days. It
also changed the number, term, qualifications, and election process of the Owners
Association’s board members.
On 10 November 2021, SLOK filed a new complaint against the Owners
Association. In its first claim for relief, SLOK sought a declaratory judgment that (1)
the 2021 Amendment was null and void; (2) SLOK still possessed veto rights under
the Declaration; and (3) there was no debt owed by SLOK to the Owners Association
for which the Owners Association could collect fees or fines. SLOK also alleged that
the Owners Association violated N.C. Gen. Stat. § 47C-3-118 by refusing SLOK the
opportunity to review the Owners Association’s financial records, among others.
-4- SLOK, LLC V. COURTSIDE CONDO. OWNERS ASS’N, INC.
Lastly, SLOK sought a further declaratory judgment that an easement barred it from
using an exterior entrance to the commercial trash room and that it was therefore
allowed to use an interior entrance so as to avoid committing trespass. SLOK also
moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
On 18 November 2021, the trial court issued a temporary restraining order
against the Owners Association, prohibiting it from suspending SLOK’s water service
or enforcing the 2021 Amendment’s additional restrictions against SLOK’s unit. On
17 December 2021, after a series of orders extending the temporary restraining order,
the court entered a preliminary injunction prohibiting the Owners Association from
imposing the 2021 Amendment’s water-services provision and noise-level restriction.
On 31 January 2022, the Owners Association filed (1) a motion to dismiss the
Owners Association’s First Claim for failure to join all necessary parties pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(7) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure; (2) a motion for a more
specific statement as to SLOK’s Second Claim; and (3) an answer, defenses, and
counterclaims. On 13 September 2022, the motion to dismiss came on for hearing. On
26 October 2022, the trial court entered an order granting the Owners Association’s
motion to dismiss the First Claim, but permitting SLOK leave to amend its complaint
to add necessary parties within 30 days. On 22 November 2022, the court entered an
amended order granting the Owners Association’s motion to dismiss, but allowing
SLOK until 28 December 2022 to add as necessary parties the remaining owners in
the condominium complex, and providing that if SLOK failed to do so, then its First
-5- SLOK, LLC V. COURTSIDE CONDO. OWNERS ASS’N, INC.
Claim would “be dismissed with prejudice.”
On 30 November 2022, James, McElroy & Diehl, P.A., (“JMD”) filed a motion
for judicial assistance to determine whether a conflict of interest existed that required
JMD’s withdrawal as SLOK’s counsel. JMD discovered a potential conflict of interest
when it began investigating the condominium unit owners to be added as necessary
parties, but Mekeisha Vicks, the sole member of SLOK, objected to JMD’s
withdrawal. On 8 December 2022, the Owners Association filed a motion for summary
judgment. On 28 December 2022, the trial court entered a revised scheduling consent
order extending SLOK’s time to file and serve its amended complaint.
On 27 February 2023, the trial court entered an order relieving JMD as SLOK’s
counsel of record. SLOK retained new counsel and on 27 March 2023 filed its
amended complaint. On 21 April 2023, SLOK filed a motion to continue the hearing
on the Owners Association’s motion for summary judgment, citing a need to review
SLOK’s file in light of its recent retention of new counsel and the fact that any ruling
would be procedurally premature. The trial court did not respond to this motion, and
the Owners Association’s motion for summary judgment came on for hearing on 26
April 2023, during which the court heard oral arguments but made no decision. On
28 April 2023, SLOK filed a motion for an extension of time to comply with the trial
court’s order to add and serve all necessary defendants, stating that it had
“substantially performed its duties . . . in efforts to join necessary parties” but that
“the execution of such duties require[d] an extension of time.” On 18 May 2023, SLOK
-6- SLOK, LLC V. COURTSIDE CONDO. OWNERS ASS’N, INC.
filed a motion to continue the trial, which was calendared for 5 June; the trial court
denied this motion.
On 26 May 2023, the Owners Association filed a motion to strike SLOK’s
amended complaint and to deny SLOK’s motion for an extension of time. The Owners
Association alleged, inter alia, that SLOK “fail[ed] to name the owners of at least
seven condominium units . . . and name[d] at least eight individuals and/or entities
that do not own condominium units” and that the motion for an extension of time was
untimely.
On 30 June 2023, the trial court entered an order granting the Owners
Association’s motion to dismiss and its motion for summary judgment. As to the
motion to dismiss, the court found that SLOK “failed to name all the remaining
owners” in its amended complaint, and consequently dismissed the First Claim with
prejudice. The court also found that no genuine issue of material fact existed with
respect to SLOK’s remaining claims and thus granted summary judgment in favor of
the Owners Association, dismissing those claims with prejudice as well. Finally, the
court dissolved the preliminary injunction.
SLOK timely filed notice of appeal from the trial court’s order granting the
Owners Association’s motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment. In the
same filing, SLOK additionally gave notice of appeal from several prior interlocutory
orders entered throughout the course of the proceedings.
SLOK subsequently filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to N.C.
-7- SLOK, LLC V. COURTSIDE CONDO. OWNERS ASS’N, INC.
R. Civ. P. 60(b). On 11 March 2024, this Court remanded the matter to the trial court
to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the Rule 60(b) motion and held the appeal in
abeyance pending the trial court’s order indicating what action it would take, but for
the pending appeal. On 7 February 2025, the trial court entered its order, noting that
it would deny SLOK’s Rule 60(b) motion because SLOK “failed to present any newly
discovered evidence or the evidence of a mistake, inadvertence, or fraud” in support
of its motion regarding the Second Claim; as for the Third Claim, SLOK was estopped
from arguing that it was unable to use the exterior entrance of the commercial trash
room, as it had the opportunity to raise this issue in SLOK I but neglected to do so.
II. Discussion
On appeal, SLOK advances several arguments in support of its contention that
the trial court erred by granting the Owners Association’s motion to dismiss and
motion for summary judgment. SLOK also alleges that the court erred by denying its
motions to continue the summary-judgment hearing and trial. For the reasons that
follow, we conclude that none of these arguments are properly before this Court.
A. Appellate Jurisdiction
SLOK raises an argument concerning two interlocutory orders: that the trial
court erred by denying its motion to continue the summary judgment hearing and its
motion to continue the trial. In its appellate brief, SLOK includes “[t]he de facto
denial [of] (or failure to address)” its 21 April 2023 motion to continue as among the
matters it seeks to appeal. However, SLOK did not include the trial court’s treatment
-8- SLOK, LLC V. COURTSIDE CONDO. OWNERS ASS’N, INC.
of either this motion to continue or its motion to continue the trial in its list of
interlocutory rulings from which it sought review in its notice of appeal. Nor, for that
matter, did SLOK identify the trial court’s 6 June 2023 written order denying its
motion to continue in its notice of appeal.
Rule 3(d) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that the
notice of appeal must “designate the judgment or order from which appeal is taken
and the court to which appeal is taken.” N.C.R. App. P. 3(d). “An appellant’s failure
to designate a particular judgment or order in the notice of appeal generally divests
this Court of jurisdiction to consider that order.” Chahdi v. Mack, 288 N.C. App. 520,
527, 886 S.E.2d 900, 906–07 (2023) (citation omitted).
Nevertheless, “[u]pon an appeal from a judgment, the [appellate] court may
review any intermediate order involving the merits and necessarily affecting the
judgment.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-278 (2023). Applying this statute, this Court has
explained:
[E]ven when a notice of appeal fails to reference an interlocutory order, in violation of Rule 3(d), appellate review of that order pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-278 is proper under the following circumstances: (1) the appellant must have timely objected to the order; (2) the order must be interlocutory and not immediately appealable; and (3) the order must have involved the merits and necessarily affected the judgment.
Chahdi, 288 N.C. App. at 528, 886 S.E.2d at 907 (citation omitted).
Our appellate courts “have found an interlocutory order to involve the merits
-9- SLOK, LLC V. COURTSIDE CONDO. OWNERS ASS’N, INC.
and necessarily affect the judgment where the order deprived an appellant of one of
[its] substantive legal claims.” Yorke v. Novant Health, Inc., 192 N.C. App. 340, 349–
50, 666 S.E.2d 127, 134 (2008), disc. review denied, 363 N.C. 260, 677 S.E.2d 461
(2009). Yet SLOK does not contend, and we do not conclude, that the denial of or “de
facto denial [of] (or failure to address)” its motions to continue involved the merits
and necessarily affected the judgment in this case. SLOK has thus failed to preserve
this issue for appellate review and “we conclude that our Court lacks jurisdiction
under either N.C.R. App. P. 3(d) or [N.C. Gen. Stat.] § 1-278 to consider” SLOK’s
appeal of the denial of or “de facto denial [of] (or failure to address)” the motions to
continue. Id. at 350, 666 S.E.2d at 135.
Indeed, SLOK does not reference N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-278 in its appellate brief,
and instead asserts that this Court may review this issue (along with each of the
other interlocutory orders from which it properly noticed appeal) pursuant to our
authority under Rule 2 of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. See
N.C.R. App. P. 2 (“To prevent manifest injustice to a party, . . . either court of the
appellate division may . . . suspend or vary the requirements or provisions of any of
these rules in a case pending before it . . . .”). “The invocation of Rule 2 is discretionary
and should only be done so cautiously and in ‘exceptional circumstances.’ ” County of
Mecklenburg v. Ryan, 281 N.C. App. 646, 659, 871 S.E.2d 110, 119 (2022) (quoting
Dogwood Dev. & Mgmt. Co. v. White Oak Transp. Co., 362 N.C. 191, 196, 657 S.E.2d
361, 364 (2008)), cert. denied, 385 N.C. 317, 891 S.E.2d 287 (2023). After careful
- 10 - SLOK, LLC V. COURTSIDE CONDO. OWNERS ASS’N, INC.
review of the record, we conclude that SLOK has shown neither manifest injustice
nor exceptional circumstances sufficient to justify our invocation of Rule 2, and we
decline to do so in the exercise of our discretion. See id.1
B. Abandoned Issues
We next address the scope of our review. SLOK filed notice of appeal from the
trial court’s order granting the Owners Association’s motion to dismiss and motion
for summary judgment. In its notice of appeal, SLOK also listed four interlocutory
orders previously entered in this matter, as well as the “de facto denial [of] (or failure
to address)” its 28 April 2023 “motion for extension of time to comply with court order
to add and serve additional defendants.” (Capitalization omitted). These include: (1)
the 26 October 2022 order granting the Owners Association’s motion to dismiss; (2)
the 22 November 2022 amended order granting the Owners Association’s motion to
dismiss; (3) the 28 December 2022 revised scheduling consent order; and (4) the 27
February 2023 order allowing JMD to withdraw as counsel of record for SLOK.
However, SLOK has failed to raise arguments on appeal concerning these four
1 Even assuming, arguendo, that the trial court’s denial of or “de facto denial [of] (or failure to
address)” the motions to continue were properly before us, SLOK’s argument would lack merit because SLOK fails to argue any prejudice. See Bowers v. Olf, 122 N.C. App. 421, 427, 470 S.E.2d 346, 350 (1996) (concluding that there was no error where the appellant “failed to show any prejudice based on the denial of his motions to continue, or any abuse of discretion by the trial court”). We also note that SLOK claims that the trial court’s “procedural rulings, considered individually and/or collectively affected [SLOK]’s substantial right to a fair trial . . . , the cumulative effect of which, in the context of the extraordinary circumstances of this case manifest a miscarriage of justice.” To the extent that SLOK suggests that this amounts to cumulative error, our Supreme Court has explained that our appellate courts “have not previously recognized the theory of cumulative error . . . in civil cases generally.” In re J.D.O., 381 N.C. 799, 822, 874 S.E.2d 507, 523–24 (2022).
- 11 - SLOK, LLC V. COURTSIDE CONDO. OWNERS ASS’N, INC.
interlocutory orders and the court’s “de facto denial [of] (or failure to address)” its 28
April motion.
“Issues not presented in a party’s brief, or in support of which no reason or
argument is stated, will be taken as abandoned.” N.C.R. App. P. 28(b)(6).
Consequently, SLOK has abandoned any argument regarding the above orders as
well as the “de facto denial [of] (or failure to address)” its “motion for extension of
time to comply with court order to add and serve additional defendants” from which
it noticed appeal.
We now turn to SLOK’s arguments regarding the trial court’s alleged error in
granting the Owners Association’s motion to dismiss and motion for summary
judgment.
C. Motion to Dismiss
SLOK contends that the trial court erred as a matter of law by granting the
Owners Association’s motion to dismiss. SLOK first claims that, in fact, “no motion
to dismiss was before the court” because the Owners Association did not file a
responsive pleading or motion to dismiss after SLOK filed its amended complaint,
and the Owners Association did not notice or schedule a hearing on any motion to
dismiss. SLOK further asserts that the court “simply accept[ed] the [Owners
Association]’s misrepresentations as a fact” when it found that SLOK failed to add all
necessary parties in its amended complaint, and according to SLOK, “no failure to
join record owners of the 106 Residential Unit Owners is shown of record.” SLOK also
- 12 - SLOK, LLC V. COURTSIDE CONDO. OWNERS ASS’N, INC.
insists that dismissal with prejudice is not a proper sanction for a failure to join
necessary parties. However, SLOK did not raise any of these arguments before the
trial court.
“In order to preserve an issue for appellate review, a party must have
presented to the trial court a timely request, objection, or motion, stating the specific
grounds for the ruling the party desired the court to make if the specific grounds were
not apparent from the context.” N.C.R. App. P. 10(a)(1). It is axiomatic that “[a]
contention not made in the court below may not be raised for the first time on appeal.
The appellant is not entitled to swap horses between courts in order to get a better
mount in the appellate courts.” Grier ex rel. Brown v. Guy, 224 N.C. App. 256, 261,
741 S.E.2d 338, 342 (2012) (cleaned up), disc. review denied, 366 N.C. 563, 738 S.E.2d
381 (2013).
At the 26 April 2023 hearing, SLOK did not argue that the motion to dismiss
was not properly before the court; that it had complied with the trial court’s condition
to add all necessary parties to its amended complaint; or that dismissal with prejudice
would be an improper sanction for the failure to join necessary parties. Instead, with
respect to the motion to dismiss, SLOK’s counsel merely contended that because
SLOK would be entitled to move for further extensions of time after the new
defendants were named, “to dismiss, based on that, something that has not happened
in the future, we don’t feel like that’s right.”
Our review of the record and transcript reveals that SLOK now attempts to
- 13 - SLOK, LLC V. COURTSIDE CONDO. OWNERS ASS’N, INC.
raise arguments on appeal that it did not present to the trial court below, thereby
depriving the court of the opportunity to consider and rule on their merits in the first
instance. We therefore dismiss SLOK’s arguments concerning the trial court’s grant
of the Owners Association’s motion to dismiss the First Claim. See id.
D. Summary Judgment
Lastly, SLOK alleges that “genuine issues of material fact preclude the
granting of summary judgment under Rule 56.” However, SLOK’s entire appellate
argument on this issue consists of (1) an excerpt from its response to the Owners
Association’s motion for summary judgment below—which is notably devoid of
citation to any legal authority; and (2) as to its declaratory-judgment claim, a list of
purportedly unresolved facts and issues that SLOK contends “cannot serve as
collateral estoppel or res judicata . . . .” SLOK has thus abandoned appellate review
of this issue by failing to present any argument supported by citation to legal
authority.
As stated above, “[i]ssues not presented in a party’s brief, or in support of which
no reason or argument is stated, will be taken as abandoned.” N.C.R. App. P. 28(b)(6).
“Accordingly, if an argument contains no citation of authority in support of an issue,
the issue will be deemed abandoned.” Thompson v. Bass, 261 N.C. App. 285, 292, 819
S.E.2d 621, 627 (2018), disc. review denied, 372 N.C. 58, 822 S.E.2d 617 (2019); see
also Groseclose v. Groseclose, 291 N.C. App. 409, 430, 896 S.E.2d 155, 169 (2023)
(“This Court has routinely held an argument to be abandoned where an appellant
- 14 - SLOK, LLC V. COURTSIDE CONDO. OWNERS ASS’N, INC.
presents argument without [citation to] authority and in contravention of [Rule
28(b)(6)].” (citation omitted)). Consequently, this issue is also “taken as abandoned.”
N.C.R. App. P. 28(b)(6).
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that SLOK has failed to present a
properly preserved legal challenge for this Court’s review. Accordingly, we affirm the
trial court’s orders.
AFFIRMED.
Judges HAMPSON and MURRY concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
- 15 -