Tumlin v. Tuggle Duggins P.A.

2018 NCBC 129

Opinion

Tumlin v. Tuggle Duggins P.A., 2018 NCBC 129.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION COUNTY OF GUILFORD 15 CVS 9887

WAYNE E. TUMLIN,

Plaintiff, ORDER & OPINION v. ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TUGGLE DUGGINS P.A.,

Defendant.

1. THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Tuggle Duggins P.A.’s

Motion for Summary Judgment (the “Motion”). For the reasons stated below, the

Motion is GRANTED in part, DENIED in part, and DEFERRED in part.

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, by G. Gray Wilson and Lorin J. Lapidus, for Plaintiff Wayne E. Tumlin.

Sharpless McClearn Lester Duffy, PA, by Frederick K. Sharpless, for Defendant Tuggle Duggins, P.A.

Gale, Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

2. This dispute concerns an attorney, his former law firm, and their

disagreement as to whether the attorney is entitled to post-termination compensation

after voluntarily resigning without adequate notice. Plaintiff, Wayne E. Tumlin

(“Tumlin”), worked for Defendant Tuggle Duggins P.A. (“Tuggle Duggins” or the

“Firm”), from May 2008 until he resigned effective June 5, 2015, having provided a

letter of resignation to the President of the Firm at the time, Mr. Ross Hamilton (“Hamilton”), and the Firm Administrator, Ms. Elizabeth Osteen (“Osteen”) on May

19, 2015.

3. Tumlin contends that he is entitled to post-termination compensation

on either of two grounds. His Complaint asserts this right based solely on the offer

upon which he accepted employment with the Firm (the “Offer Letter”). He

subsequently claims in the alternative that he is entitled to such compensation under

the Firm’s policy that purportedly controls post-termination compensation rights for

all departing attorneys (the “Firm Policy”).

4. Tuggle Duggins contends that Tumlin is not entitled to compensation on

either basis. As to the Offer Letter, Tuggle Duggins contends that its terms provide

no grounds for such compensation. As to the Firm Policy, while admitting that it

might otherwise provide Tumlin with a right to post-termination compensation, the

Firm posits that such compensation is conditioned on providing 30 days’ written

notice of resignation (the “Notice Requirement”), which Tumlin failed to provide.

Tumlin responds that the Notice Requirement does not bar his claim, either because

the Firm waived that condition precedent, or because the Notice Requirement

contravenes public policy.

5. Tumlin also contends that the compensation he is due constitutes wages

under the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act. Finally, Tumlin presents an

alternative claim based on unjust enrichment.

6. For reasons discussed below, the Court concludes that Tumlin’s breach

of contract claim fails to the extent it is based on the Offer Letter, that the Notice Requirement in the Firm Policy does not contravene public policy, and that there are

contested material issues as to whether the Firm waived the Notice Requirement that

should be addressed by a jury. The North Carolina Wage and Hour Act and unjust

enrichment claims cannot be resolved until the contested notice issue is resolved.

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

7. Tumlin began this action by filing his Complaint in Guilford County

Superior Court on November 30, 2015, asserting claims for breach of contract, unjust

enrichment, violation of the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, fraud, and a request

that the Court declare that the Notice Requirement in the Firm Policy is void as a

matter of public policy. (Compl., ECF No. 1.)

8. Tuggle Duggins filed a Notice of Designation requesting that the case be

designated as a mandatory complex business case on December 29, 2015. (Notice

Designation Action Mandatory Complex Business Case N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-

45.4(a)(1), ECF No. 5.) The Chief Justice designated the case as a mandatory complex

business case on January 4, 2016, (Designation Order, ECF No. 6), and it was

assigned to the undersigned on January 5, 2016, (Assignment Order, ECF No. 7).

9. Tuggle Duggins timely answered the Complaint, (Answer & Mots.

Dismiss, ECF No. 10), after which on September 26, 2016, with leave of Court, Tuggle

Duggins amended its Answer to include an affirmative defense of good faith to

Tumlin’s North Carolina Wage and Hour Act claim, (Am. Answer, ECF No. 33).

10. Tuggle Duggins filed the Motion on all of Tumlin’s claims on January

25, 2018. (Def.’s Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 57.) Tumlin voluntarily dismissed his claim for fraud without prejudice on August 31, 2018. (Pl.’s Partial Voluntary Dismissal

Without Prejudice, ECF No. 71.)

11. Discovery has closed, the Motion was fully briefed, and the Court heard

oral argument on September 4, 2018. The Motion is now ripe for disposition.

III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

12. The Court makes no findings of fact on a motion for summary judgment

but summarizes the following undisputed and contested facts to provide context for

its ruling. See Hyde Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Dixie Leasing Corp., 26 N.C. App. 138, 142,

215 S.E.2d 162, 165 (1975).

A. The Parties

13. Tumlin is a citizen and resident of Greensboro, Guilford County, North

Carolina. (Compl. ¶ 1; Am. Answer ¶ 1.) Tuggle Duggins is a North Carolina

professional association with its principal place of business in Greensboro, Guilford

County, North Carolina. (Compl. ¶ 2; Am. Answer ¶ 2.)

B. Tumlin’s Employment

14. In early 2008, Tuggle Duggins extended Tumlin an offer which he

accepted. In May 2008, Tumlin moved to North Carolina from Maine and began

working at Tuggle Duggins on mergers and acquisitions, corporate law, securities,

and corporate finance. (Compl. ¶¶ 3–4; Am. Answer ¶ 4.)

15. Robert Cone (“Cone”), a Tuggle Duggins partner at the time, prepared a

memorandum addressed to the Firm’s directors summarizing the reasons why an

offer to Tumlin was being considered, and the terms on which an offer might be extended to him. The record does not contain a formal employment contract signed

by Tumlin. Rather, it appears that Tumlin was provided a copy of the memorandum

Cone prepared for his fellow directors and accepted the terms outlined therein. The

Court refers to Cone’s memorandum as the previously defined Offer Letter.

16. The Offer Letter specified a short-term guaranteed salary, and

contemplated that Tumlin would buy stock in Tuggle Duggins for $55,000 within

sixty days of passing the North Carolina Bar Exam. (Br. Supp. Def.’s Mot. Summ. J.

5 (“Def.’s Summ. J. Br.”), ECF No. 58.) In September 2009, Tumlin purchased that

stock and became a shareholder. At varying times during his employment, Tumlin

was an employee, a shareholder, an officer, and a director of the Firm. (Dep. Wayne

E. Tumlin 32:24–35:5 (“Tumlin Dep.”), ECF No. 59.1.) Tumlin was also a member of

the Firm’s executive committee from 2012 until May 2015 (Tumlin Dep. 43:10–16),

in which role he oversaw the voluntary resignation of at least one shareholder,

(Tumlin Dep. 36:20–25). At the time that Tumlin purchased stock in the Firm,

Tumlin signed a Stock Purchase Agreement amended by a Building and Lease

Agreement. (Compl. ¶ 6; Am. Answer ¶ 6.) Neither of these documents refer to nor

incorporate the Firm Policy.

C. Tumlin’s Offer Letter and the Firm Policy

17. In claiming a right to post-termination compensation based on the Offer

Letter, Tumlin relies on one of its sentences, which states in pertinent part: “[i]f

Wayne resigns from Tuggle Duggins before August 30, 2011[,] his compensation will

end and he will not be entitled to: any bonuses after his date of departure; collection of any trailing accounts receivable; or any guaranteed amounts that would otherwise

come due after his departure.” (Aff. Wayne E. Tumlin Ex. A, at ¶ IV.D (“Offer

Letter”), ECF No. 68.2.) Tumlin argues that the last clause is a reference to

paragraph IV.C in the Offer Letter, which states: “[a]gain, Wayne could take the

maximum draw, be eligible for quarterly bonuses based on production, and any

guaranteed amounts would be paid by the end of the year.” (Offer Letter ¶ IV.C.)

18. The Firm Policy was also in place when Tumlin was hired, but the Offer

Letter does not explicitly refer to it. Tumlin claims a right to post-termination

compensation based on the Firm Policy alone. It provides,

Shareholders/Directors. Upon termination of employment due to death, disability, voluntary separation (subject to provisions of paragraph 6), or involuntary separation a Shareholder/Director attorney shall be entitled to compensation based upon production credits allocated to that Shareholder/Director attorney in the Firm’s books on collections made by the firm (i) through the end of the Firm’s fiscal year in which termination of employment occurs, and (ii) through the end of the Firm’s fiscal year next following the fiscal year in which termination of employment occurs. (Tumlin Dep. Ex. 11, at ¶ 4 (“Firm Policy”), ECF No. 59.1 (emphasis added).)

Paragraph six of the Firm Policy conditions the right to post-termination

compensation:

Notice. In the event that a Shareholder/Director desires to terminate his or her employment with the Firm by voluntary separation, written notice shall be given to each the President and Secretary of the Firm. The written notice required by this Paragraph shall be given a minimum of thirty (30) days in advance of the effective date of termination of employment by voluntary separation. The giving of written notice required by this Paragraph 6 is a condition precedent to the payment of all compensation to a Shareholder/Director under Paragraph 4.

(Firm Policy ¶ 6 (emphasis added).) 19. The Firm maintains that the Firm Policy was put in place in the late

1980s to prevent “a departure from the firm on a kind of overnight basis and . . . to

provide a 30 day transition period where . . . both sides could have an opportunity to

talk to . . . clients and work it out.” (Dep. Ross Hamilton 77:21–78:2 (“Hamilton

Dep.”), ECF No. 59.2.)

20. The Firm Policy was revised in December 2008 after Tumlin became a

director in order to comply with Internal Revenue Code section 409A. (See Tumlin

Dep. Ex. 10, at 2 (“Ex. 10”), ECF No. 59.1.) On December 16, 2008, all directors of

the Firm, including Tumlin, were e-mailed a red-lined version of the updated Firm

Policy. (See Ex. 10.) Neither the entitlement to post-termination compensation for

shareholders and directors in paragraph four, nor the Notice Requirement stated in

paragraph six were modified in 2008. (See Ex. 10, at 2.) The Court refers to the Firm

Policy as amended in 2008.

D. Tumlin’s Resignation

21. On May 19, 2015, Tumlin e-mailed Hamilton and Osteen his letter of

resignation (“Resignation Letter”) stating that his last day would be June 5, 2015.

(See Compl. ¶ 18; Am. Answer ¶ 18.) Prior to submitting his Resignation Letter,

Tumlin met with Hamilton on May 14, 2015 to discuss his leaving (“May 14

Meeting”). (See Compl. ¶ 13 (stating the two met “[o]n or about May 13”); Am. Answer

¶ 13 (stating the two met on May 14).) During the May 14 Meeting, Hamilton

requested that Tumlin reconsider resigning. (See Compl. ¶ 16; Am. Answer ¶ 16.) On May 18, Tumlin and Hamilton met again, and Hamilton asked Tumlin to consider

staying another year (“May 18 Meeting”). (Compl. ¶ 17; Am. Answer ¶ 17.)

22. Tumlin states that he had not finalized his Resignation Letter prior to

the May 18 Meeting because he wanted to discuss a mutually agreeable departure

date. Tumlin claims that, during the May 18 Meeting, Hamilton agreed to the June

5 departure date, and it was this agreement that assured Tumlin that June 5 was an

acceptable date for the Firm. (Compl. ¶ 37; see Tumlin Dep. 57:22–58:6.) However,

Tuggle Duggins denies that Hamilton accepted the June 5 departure date in any way

prior to receiving Tumlin’s Resignation Letter on May 19. (Hamilton Dep. 45:21–23,

56:6–8.)

23. Following his departure Tumlin continued to work with the Firm on

client transition matters. (Compl. ¶ 22; Am. Answer ¶ 22.) On September 19, 2015,

Tumlin sent Hamilton an e-mail inquiring about when he would receive his “payment

for collected fees allocated to [him] for work performed” during the months he was

employed in that fiscal year. (Compl. ¶ 31; see Am. Answer ¶ 31.) Hamilton

responded by e-mail that Tuggle Duggins owed Tumlin no further compensation and

attached the Firm Policy. (Compl. ¶ 32; Am. Answer ¶ 32.)

IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW

24. Summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to

interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that

there is no genuine issue as to any material fact[,] and that any party is entitled to a

judgment as a matter of law.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c). “Summary judgment is improper if any material fact is subject to dispute.” Culler v. Hamlett,

148 N.C. App. 389, 391, 559 S.E.2d 192, 194 (2002). The movant bears the burden of

proving the lack of a triable issue. Dalton v. Camp, 353 N.C. 647, 651, 548 S.E.2d

704, 707 (2001). Once the movant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the

nonmoving party to produce a forecast of evidence that demonstrates facts showing

that it can establish a prima facie case at trial. Austin Maint. & Constr., Inc. v.

Crowder Constr. Co., 224 N.C. App. 401, 407, 742 S.E.2d 535, 540 (2012). The Court

must view all the presented evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving

party. Dalton, 353 N.C. at 651, 548 S.E.2d at 707.

V. ANALYSIS

A. Tumlin’s rights under the Offer Letter and Firm Policy

25. Tumlin premises his breach of contract claim on both the Offer Letter

and the Firm Policy independently. (See Br. Opp’n Def.’s Mot. Summ. J. 8–11 (“Br.

Opp’n Summ. J.”), ECF No. 68.) Even though Tumlin did not state a claim based on

the Firm Policy in his Complaint, the Firm has on several occasions conceded that

Tumlin would have had a right to post-termination compensation under the Firm

Policy in some amount if he had satisfied the Notice Requirement as a condition

precedent. The record does not, however, include any basis upon which Tumlin is

able to enforce and be bound by the Firm Policy, for example by virtue of his status

as an employee, shareholder or director. The Court is permitted, in its discretion, to

consider claims beyond those expressly stated in the pleadings when ruling on a

motion for summary judgment. See Stephenson v. Warren, 136 N.C. App. 768, 771, 525 S.E.2d 809, 811 (2000); see also Sitelink Software, LLC v. Red Nova Labs, Inc.,

No. 14 CVS 9922, 2018 NCBC LEXIS 90, at *15 (N.C. Super. Ct. Aug. 20, 2018).

Therefore, the Court, in its discretion, will consider Tumlin’s claim to post-

termination compensation under the Firm Policy as well as the Offer Letter, while

recognizing the need for further development of the record to determine if there is a

right under the Firm Policy to be enforced, and if so, in what amount.

26. The elements of a breach of contract claim are the existence of a valid

contract and a material breach of its terms. Samost v. Duke Univ., 226 N.C. App.

514, 518, 742 S.E.2d 257, 260 (2013) (citing Poor v. Hill, 138 N.C. App. 19, 26, 530

S.E.2d 838, 843 (2000)). At common law, a material breach gives the non-breaching

party the right to sue at law for damages, or in equity for rescission if the legal remedy

is inadequate. See Hardin v. KCS Int’l, 199 N.C. App. 687, 705, 682 S.E.2d 726, 739

(2009). A breach is material if it goes to “the very heart of the instrument” and the

breached provision “is such an essential part of the bargain that the failure of it must

be considered as destroying the entire contract.” Wilson v. Wilson, 261 N.C. 40, 43,

134 S.E.2d 240, 242–43 (1964) (quoting Steak House, Inc. v. Barnett, 65 So. 2d 736,

738 (Fla. 1953)).

(1) The Offer Letter contains no promise of post-termination compensation independent from the Firm Policy

27. Tumlin argues that, at a minimum the Offer Letter is ambiguous with

respect to Tumlin’s entitlement to post-termination compensation, precluding

summary judgment because the interpretation of an ambiguous contract is a matter

for a jury. (See Br. Opp’n Summ. J. 10.) Tuggle Duggins contends the Offer Letter cannot be interpreted so as to provide specific enough terms from which to raise even

an ambiguity as to whether it includes a promise of post-termination compensation.

(See Def.’s Reply Pl.’s Resp. Def.’s Mot. Summ. J. 3, ECF No. 69.)

28. The law distinguishes between ambiguous contracts and contracts

which are invalid as a matter of law for failure to specify a material term. See Gunn

v. Lab. Corp. of Am., No. 13 CVS 1599, 2014 NCBC LEXIS 29, at *14–15 (N.C. Super.

Ct. July 3, 2014) (finding that a lessee was entitled to summary judgment on a

broker’s breach of contract claim because there was neither a definite term regarding

the amount of the broker’s commission, nor a method for calculating it). A contract

is ambiguous if “there is any uncertainty as to what the agreement is between the

parties,” Crider v. Jones Island Club, Inc., 147 N.C. App. 262, 267, 554 S.E.2d 863,

867 (2001), and the “language of [the] contract is fairly and reasonably susceptible to

either of the constructions asserted by the parties.” Barrett Kays & Assocs., P.A. v.

Colonial Bldg. Co., 129 N.C. App. 525, 528, 500 S.E.2d 108, 111 (1998) (quoting Bicket

v. McLean Sec., Inc., 125 N.C. App. 548, 553, 478 S.E.2d 518, 521 (1996)).

29. The interpretation of an ambiguous contract is a question of fact based

on intrinsic evidence, see Crider, 147 N.C. App. at 266–67, 554 S.E.2d at 866, while

the construction of an unambiguous contract is a matter of law for the court, see Bank

of Am., N.A. v. Rice, 230 N.C. App. 450, 456, 750 S.E.2d 205, 209 (2013) (quoting

Stovall v. Stovall, 205 N.C. App. 405, 410, 698 S.E.2d 680, 684 (2010)). But, if there

is ambiguity, it must arise from the terms the parties included because, in construing

a contract, a court may not “reject what the parties inserted or insert what the parties elected to omit.” Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Carolina Power & Light Co., 257 N.C. 717, 719,

127 S.E.2d 539, 541 (1962).

30. Service contracts, such as the Offer Letter here, are unenforceable

unless they contain a price or compensation term, or a method for determining that

term. See Brawley v. Brawley, 87 N.C. App. 545, 550, 361 S.E.2d 759, 762 (1987)

(citing Howell v. Allen & Co., 8 N.C. App. 287, 289, 174 S.E.2d 55, 56 (1970)). A

contract may be sufficiently definite if the language used explicitly references an

external method for calculating price. Id. at 550, 361 S.E.2d at 762 (finding the

contract definite where it stated “[c]osts shall be determined in accordance with CBI’s

accounting system and as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto”) (original emphasis

omitted). But, critically, the Offer Letter neither speaks to how post-termination

compensation would be calculated nor to the duration and time of the payment.

31. The Offer Letter language states only that if Tumlin resigns “before

August 30, 2011, his compensation will end and he will not be entitled to: any bonuses

after his date of departure; collection of any trailing accounts receivable; or any

guaranteed amounts that would otherwise come due after his departure.” (Offer

Letter ¶ IV.D.) Tumlin argues that an ambiguity arises, because taking that

language in the inverse, he cannot forfeit something to which he is not first entitled.

(See Br. Opp’n Summ. J. 11.) He then argues that because he did not resign before

August 30, 2011, he is entitled to bonuses, trailing accounts, and “any guaranteed

amounts” that would “otherwise come due after his departure.” However, the Offer

Letter specifies neither under which circumstances those entitlements might otherwise come due or be affirmatively triggered, nor the amounts that might be owed

as a result. That omission is fatal.

32. Tumlin further argues that, read together, paragraphs IV.D and IV.C

establish Tumlin’s right to post-termination compensation. However, even read in

tandem, paragraphs IV.D and IV.C do not describe an enforceable right to post-

termination compensation, either explicitly or implicitly. While the Offer Letter

states that any “guaranteed amounts” would be paid by the end of the year, the

phrase “guaranteed amounts” is never defined to include post-termination

compensation. Additionally, while the Offer Letter states generally that Tuggle

Duggins is “a strict ‘formula compensation’ firm,” (Offer Letter § II), there is no

method provided for calculating compensation, let alone post-termination

compensation in the Offer Letter itself, nor is there any reference to any external

source containing such a formula.

33. While the Offer Letter may at best be read to refer to the Firm Policy,

the significant point is that the Offer Letter itself cannot be an independent source of

post-termination compensation. Accordingly, Tumlin’s breach of contract claim is

dismissed to the extent it is predicated on the Offer Letter. Even so, the issue of

whether the condition precedent in the Firm Policy has been satisfied or waived is

presented.

(2) There are genuine issues of material fact regarding the enforceability of the Firm Policy and waiver of its Notice Requirement 34. Tumlin argues that if his breach of contract claim based solely on the

Offer Letter fails, he is nevertheless entitled to post-termination compensation under

the Firm Policy. As noted above, the Firm Policy includes the Notice Requirement—

an express 30 days’ advance written notice provision that must be delivered to the

Firm before termination of employment. The survival of Tumlin’s breach of contract

claim then depends on whether Tumlin either satisfied the Notice Requirement, or

the Firm waived that requirement. Tumlin asserts that Hamilton accepted the June

5 departure date and waived the Notice Requirement by doing so. (See Br. Opp’n

Summ. J. 15.)

a. The enforceability of the Notice Requirement

35. The Firm has acknowledged that Tumlin would have been entitled to

post-termination compensation had he satisfied the Notice Requirement. It follows

that Tumlin’s claim based on the Firm Policy is adequate to survive summary

judgment if there are contested material facts as to whether the Notice Requirement

was satisfied or waived.

36. At this juncture, the Court accepts the Firm’s concession that Tumlin

has a right under the Firm Policy. Without that concession, Tumlin has not developed

a full record to support his assertion. North Carolina courts have held that

“[s]tipulations as to questions of law are generally held invalid and ineffective, and

not binding upon the courts, either trial or appellate. . . .” State v. Hanton, 175 N.C.

App. 250, 253, 623 S.E.2d 600, 603 (2006) (quoting State v. Prevette, 39 N.C. App. 470,

472, 250 S.E.2d 682, 683 (1979)); see also Morton Bldgs., Inc. v. Tolson, 172 N.C. App. 119, 125, 615 S.E.2d 906, 911 (2005). “The construction and effect of a written

instrument is a question of law.” Swift & Co. v. Hocking Valley Ry. Co., 243 U.S. 281,

289 (1917) (citation omitted).

37. The Firm Policy purports to dictate the post-termination compensation

rights of “Associates,” (Firm Policy ¶ 2), “Principals,” (Firm Policy ¶ 3), and

“Shareholder/Directors,” (Firm Policy ¶ 4). Significantly, the Firm Policy itself does

not memorialize the legal mechanism by which the Firm’s Shareholders/Directors are

bound to it. More critically, Tumlin has not presented evidence that he ever expressly

agreed to be bound by the Firm Policy. In fact, he disclaimed knowledge of certain

terms, including the Notice Requirement. (See Aff. Wayne E. Tumlin Opp’n Def.’s

Mot. Summ. J. ¶ 6 (“Tumlin Aff.”), ECF No. 68.2.) Even though the Firm admits that

Tumlin has some right under the Firm Policy, it is not yet clear exactly how the Firm

Policy applies to Tumlin, assuming all claims are not barred because of a failure to

satisfy the Notice Requirement. Those evidentiary issues await trial.

b. Implied waiver of the Notice Requirement

38. The Court then turns its attention to the Firm’s contention that Tumlin

forfeited whatever rights he may have otherwise had under the Firm Policy when he

failed to satisfy the Notice Requirement as a condition precedent.1 There is no

dispute that the effective date of Tumlin’s resignation was less than 30 days after his

1 While Tumlin did provide written notice of his departure to Hamilton, the president of the

Firm, it is unclear from the record who the secretary of the Firm is, and whether notice was provided to him or her as is required by the Firm Policy. (See Firm Policy ¶ 6.) first written notice of his intent to resign. (See Tumlin Aff. Ex. B (“Tumlin

Resignation E-mail & Letter”), ECF No. 68.2.)

39. Tumlin claims that Hamilton waived the Notice Requirement on behalf

of the Firm by agreeing to the June 5 departure date during the May 18 Meeting, and

by accepting the Resignation Letter tendered to him via e-mail on May 19. (See Br.

Opp’n Summ. J. 15.) The Firm contends that the evidence does not support a waiver

as Hamilton expressly denies having agreed to the June 5 departure date, (see

Hamilton Dep. 45:21–23, 56:6–8), and because waiver requires more substantial

evidence of the Firm’s intent to relinquish its right to insist on the condition

precedent.

40. As the Firm Policy expressly includes the Notice Requirement as a

condition to post-termination compensation, and Tumlin admits that he did not

satisfy the 30 days’ advance written notice requirement, the burden of proof falls on

Tumlin to prove that the Firm waived his obligation to do so. In deciding whether

the Firm is entitled to summary judgment then, the question is whether Tumlin has

presented a forecast of evidence sufficient to support a jury finding that the Firm

waived the Notice Requirement.

41. The elements of waiver are “(1) the existence, at the time of the alleged

waiver, of a right, advantage or benefit; (2) the knowledge, actual or constructive, of

the existence thereof; and (3) an intention to relinquish such right, advantage or

benefit.” Christenbury Eye Ctr., P.A. v. Medflow, Inc., No. 14 CVS 17400, 2015 NCBC

LEXIS 64, at *10 (N.C. Super. Ct. June 19, 2015) (quoting Demeritt v. Springsteed¸ 204 N.C. App. 325, 328–29, 693 S.E.2d 719, 721 (2010)). A party may waive a

condition precedent for its benefit by intentionally and voluntarily relinquishing it.

See Gore v. Myrtle/Mueller, 362 N.C. 27, 38, 653 S.E.2d 400, 408 (2007); Fairview

Developers, Inc. v. Miller, 187 N.C. App. 168, 173, 652 S.E.2d 365, 369 (2007) (citing

McNally v. Allstate Ins. Co., 142 N.C. App. 680, 683, 544 S.E.2d 807, 809 (2001)

(subsequent history omitted)).

42. Waiver is a question of intent, and “[t]he intention to waive may be

expressed or implied from acts or conduct that naturally lead the other party to

believe that the right has been intentionally given up.” Klein v. Avemco Ins. Co., 289

N.C. 63, 68, 220 S.E.2d 595, 599 (1975). “There can be no waiver unless so intended

by one party, and so understood by the other, or one party has acted as to mislead the

other.” Harris & Harris Constr. Co. v. Crain & Denbo, Inc., 256 N.C. 110, 119, 123

S.E.2d 590, 596 (1962). Express waiver is voluntary and intentional whereas implied

waiver is evidenced by a party’s decisive, unequivocal conduct from which an intent

to waive may reasonably be inferred. Express Waiver, Black’s Law Dictionary (10th

ed. 2014); Implied Waiver, Black’s Law Dictionary.

43. Tumlin has not argued that the Firm expressly waived the Notice

Requirement. Rather, he contends that waiver must be implied from Hamilton’s

acceptance of the June 5 departure date when Hamilton knew of the condition

precedent and knew that June 5 was less than 30 days after Tumlin first announced his intent to resign on that date.2 Tumlin asserts that “Mr. Hamilton’s express words

and conduct illustrate that Tuggle Duggins agreed to accept the status and validity

[of] Mr. Tumlin’s departure by voluntary resignation without providing the 30-day

notice and thus relinquished its known right to enforce that provision against Mr.

Tumlin.” (Br. Opp’n Summ. J. 16 (emphasis added).)

44. In a further effort to avoid summary judgment, Tumlin also argues that

the Firm must not be allowed to rely on the Notice Requirement because Hamilton

had an affirmative obligation to inform Tumlin that his resignation date did not

comply with the Notice Requirement before formally accepting his resignation. (Br.

Opp’n Summ. J. 16.)

45. North Carolina recognizes implied waiver by forbearance, acceptance,

and acquiescence, but not by silence absent some affirmative duty to speak. In light

of Tumlin’s multiple factual arguments in support of a finding of waiver, the Court

must now draw attention to the linguistic and legal variances between “silence” and

“forbearance,” and between “acquiescence” and “acceptance” to consider whether the

evidence offered by Tumlin is sufficient to justify submitting the issue of waiver to a

jury under North Carolina law.

2 While the Firm Policy states “[t]he written notice required by this Paragraphshall be given a minimum of thirty (30) days in advance of the effective date of termination of employment by voluntary separation,” (Firm Policy ¶ 6 (emphasis added)), because Tumlin first expressed his intent to resign by June 5 on May 18—also less than 30 days from June 5, the fact that Tumlin did not tender his written notice until May 19 does not change the potential legal effect of Hamilton’s alleged oral agreement to the June 5 date on May 18. 46. Silence is “a restraint from speaking.” Silence, Black’s Law Dictionary.

“Mere silence at a time when there is no occasion to speak is not waiver, nor evidence

from which waiver may be inferred, especially where such silence is unaccompanied

by any act calculated to mislead.”3 Brittain v. Taylor, 168 N.C. 271, 276, 84 S.E. 280,

282 (1915) (citation omitted); see also Clemmons v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 267 N.C.

495, 504–05, 148 S.E.2d 640, 647 (1966) (finding that, where the insured advised her

insurance company that she was being sued, the insurer’s silence and failure to direct

the insured how to comply with a condition precedent to her policy was insufficient

evidence to support a finding that the insurance company knowingly and

intentionally waived its rights); Meekins v. Aetna Ins. Co., 231 N.C. 452, 456, 57

S.E.2d 777, 780 (1950) (finding that, if there has been a breach of its policy, an

insurance company may choose to waive the forfeiture by express or implied waiver,

but “[a] waiver cannot be inferred from its mere silence”).

47. Tumlin has presented no evidence upon which the Court should impose

a duty to speak on the Firm or on Hamilton on the Firm’s behalf. The Court agrees

with Tuggle Duggins’ position that Hamilton’s failure to inform Tumlin of the Notice

Requirement at any time the two were discussing Tumlin’s resignation cannot be the

basis upon which a jury finds waiver under North Carolina law. (See Def.’s Mem.

Additional Authority Issue Waiver 4, ECF No. 73.)

3 By voluntarily dismissing his fraud claim, Tumlin has abandoned any argument that Hamilton sought to induce an insufficient notice in order to defraud Tumlin of any right of post termination compensation. 48. Likewise, it follows that Tumlin has not shown any basis for waiver due

to an act of forbearance. See McNally, 142 N.C. App. at 683, 544 S.E.2d at 810

(stating that waiver occurs “where one in possession of any right . . . and of full

knowledge of the material facts, does or forbears the doing of something inconsistent

with the existence of the right") (quoting Danville Lumber & Mfg. Co. v. Gallivan

Bldg., 177 N.C. 103, 107–08, 97 S.E. 718, 720 (1919)). Forbearance is “[t]he act of

tolerating or abstaining. The act of refraining from enforcing a right, obligation or

debt. Strictly speaking, forbearance denotes an intentional negative act, while

omission or neglect is an unintentional negative act.” Forbearance, Black’s Law

Dictionary (emphasis in original); see Christenbury Eye Ctr., 2015 NCBC LEXIS at

*11 (finding at the 12(b)(6) stage that Christenbury waived future enforcement of its

rights where it was on notice of its rights but “neither complained of nor insisted on”

them being acknowledged even though it had the opportunity to do so); see also Am.

Hardware Mut. Ins. Co. v. BIM, Inc., 885 F.2d 132, 141 (4th Cir. 1989) (finding that

where paying a percentage of anticipated premiums was a condition precedent to

coverage under an insurance policy, by delaying sending a notice of cancellation on

the policy after receiving a bad check from BIM for two months, “a reasonable trier

of fact could conceivably conclude that American Hardware imposed on itself a ‘duty

to speak’ more quickly than it did . . . [and] that the company’s prolonged silence

constituted a violation of that duty . . . .”).

49. Obviously, when allowing Tumlin to depart less than 30 days from the

time he provided written notice, Tuggle Duggins elected to forgo any benefit it would have otherwise enjoyed by insisting that Tumlin remain during the 30 day period. It

does not follow, however, that the Firm has waived the Notice Requirement by the

same conduct. There is no reasoned basis to conclude that the benefit of the Notice

Requirement to the Firm—having adequate time to discuss a departure with its

clients and make adequate arrangements—is quid pro quo with a departing

attorney’s entitlement to post-termination compensation. The consequence of a

departing attorney’s failure to give adequate notice is the attorney’s relinquishment

of the right to post-termination compensation. As such, the Firm Policy placed an

affirmative obligation on Tumlin to give proper notice to Tuggle Duggins. It does not

follow that Tuggle Duggins was also obligated to ensure that proper notice was given

to it.4 In sum, the Firm’s failure to insist on notice does not constitute forbearance

supporting a finding of waiver. Therefore, Tumlin must prove waiver on a different

basis.

50. In North Carolina, waiver may additionally be inferred from acceptance

or acquiescence. See Danville Lumber, 177 N.C. at 107, 97 S.E. at 720; see also Hill

4 While not dispositive or even persuasive in any way, the Court notes Tumlin’s assertion

that he was unaware of the Notice Requirement as he had no recollection of having been provided the Firm Policy during his employment. Tumlin claims that his first knowledge of the Firm Policy was when Hamilton sent it to him in September 2015. (Tumlin Aff. ¶ 6.) As an initial matter, the Court notes that Tumlin must have been aware that there was some policy at the Firm regarding post-termination compensation, as he quickly asserted a right to compensation that could not be independently derived from the Offer Letter. Additionally, Tumlin is presumptively charged with knowledge of the Firm Policy, particularly as a member of the Firm’s executive committee and as an overseer of another director’s departure on a prior occasion. In any event, the record demonstrates that Tumlin received a copy of the Firm Policy via e-mail on Tuesday, December 16, 2008. (See Ex. 10, at 1.) But, again, Tumlin’s knowledge of the Notice Requirement, or his lack of it, does not control whether he was required to satisfy it as a condition precedent. v. Atlantic & N. C. R. Co., 143 N.C. 539, 557, 55 S.E. 854, 860 (1906) (“The

acquiescence of one who might have taken advantage of an error obviates its effect .

. . .”); Frank v. Wilson & Co., 24 Del. Ch. 237, 245, 9 A.2d 82, 87 (1939)

("[A]cquiescence is a species of waiver."). The difference between acceptance and

acquiescence is a matter of degree. Acquiescence is merely “passive acceptance or

submission.” Acquiescence, Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2016). Though it is

present, case law discussing waiver by acquiescence in North Carolina is

unfortunately sparse.

51. In North Carolina case law, acquiescence is almost always discussed in

the context of real estate transactions and has primarily (if not exclusively) been

evaluated as evidence of implied waiver where that acquiescence was to a breach, not

a condition precedent, and that breach was followed by continued performance by the

acquiescing party consistent with the contract. See, e.g., Vernon v. R. J. Reynolds

Realty Co., 226 N.C. 58, 61, 36 S.E.2d 710, 712 (1946) (finding that homeowners

benefiting from a real estate covenant could acquiesce to a change in conditions “to

such an extent as to constitute a waiver”); Treadwell v. Goodwin, 14 N.C. App. 685,

690, 189 S.E.2d 643, 646–47 (1972) (“[T]he lessor’s acceptance, without objection, and

his acting upon a notice not given within the required time, constitute a waiver. A

waiver will be implied where the lessee remains in possession and pays the rent to

the lessor with the acquiescence of the latter.”) (quoting 50 Am. Jur. 2d Landlord and

Tenant § 1186). 52. Here, there was no breach by Tumlin, but rather a failure of a condition

precedent. As such, there was no further possibility of continued performance by

Tuggle Duggins from which implied waiver could be inferred. See Fletcher v. Jones,

314 N.C. 389, 394, 333 S.E.2d 731, 735 (1985) (holding that the defendant waived the

date that performance was due by making representations and assurances to the

plaintiff that defendant was willing to perform after that date).

53. As the above case law suggests, there is no clear line of demarcation as

to what does or does not constitute adequate evidence of waiver by acquiescence. “The

difficulty is in the application of the doctrine [of waiver] to any given case.” Danville

Lumber, 177 N.C. at 108, 97 S.E. at 720–21. This is especially true of implied waiver

because intent must often be inferred or deduced “with more or less certainty from

the external and visible acts of the party and all the accompanying circumstances of

the transaction . . . .” H.M. Wade Mfg. Co. v. Lefkowitz, 204 N.C. 449, 453–54, 168

S.E. 517, 519 (1933); see also Guerry v. Am. Trust Co., 234 N.C. 644, 648, 68 S.E.2d

272, 274 (1951) (citations omitted) (“A person may . . . dispense with the right by . . .

conduct which naturally and justly leads the other party to believe that he has so

dispensed with the right.”). The Court’s task is made all the more difficult by the fact

that the discussions in the few North Carolina cases addressing claims of implied

waiver are meager in depth.

54. Although Hamilton denies he ever expressly agreed to Tumlin’s June 5

departure, Tumlin has presented evidence that Hamilton expressly agreed to it

during the May 18 Meeting and then later accepted the Resignation Letter containing the same date. While the Court expresses no opinion as to whether Tumlin may

ultimately prevail, it concludes that there is adequate evidence requiring the Court

to submit the question of implied waiver to the jury. The Court summarizes that

evidence, both contested and uncontested.

55. On May 14, 2015, Tumlin dropped by Hamilton’s office to discuss his

intent to resign. At the time of the May 14 Meeting, Hamilton was under the

impression that Tumlin had not foreclosed the possibility of staying at Tuggle

Duggins and was open to discussion on that point. (Hamilton Dep. 34:19–35:2.)

According to Hamilton, the Notice Requirement was not discussed or even thought of

because he was hoping that he could convince Tumlin to stay. (Hamilton Dep. 38:21–

39:22.)

56. Tumlin also recollects that at the May 14 Meeting Hamilton told him to

hold off on making an announcement to the Firm about his departure because

Hamilton wanted an opportunity to speak with Tumlin about his resignation again.

(Tumlin Dep. 51:18–25.) However, according to Tumlin, there was discussion about

picking a date for his departure, and while Hamilton and he briefly discussed the

timing of Hamilton’s upcoming June vacation, they did not settle on a date for

Tumlin’s departure at that time. (Tumlin Dep. 52:1–15.)

57. During the May 18 Meeting, Hamilton and Tumlin discussed Tumlin’s

resignation over lunch. (Hamilton Dep. 24:23–25.) Tumlin claims that Hamilton

asked him to stay, but that they then discussed their respective schedules and

Tumlin’s workload, following which Hamilton “agreed that the [F]irm would accept the departure date of 5 June 2015.” (Tumlin Aff. ¶ 3.) According to Tumlin, Hamilton

specifically noted that he would be on vacation on June 5, but that he did not need to

be there for Tumlin’s last day. (Tumlin Aff. ¶ 3; see Hamilton Dep. 19:9–10 (“I wasn’t

there for the last week or so of [Tumlin’s] tenure.”).)

58. However, Hamilton firmly avows that there was no discussion about a

particular date for Tumlin’s departure at the May 18 Meeting. (Hamilton Dep. 45:21–

23, 56:6–8 (“[T]he first time I knew . . . his resignation date was when I got his

letter.”).) Furthermore, according to Hamilton, any discussion between Tumlin and

him regarding their respective schedules was general conversation unrelated to

Tumlin leaving the Firm. (See Hamilton Dep. 47:12–15.) There was no discussion

about the Notice Requirement on May 18. (Hamilton Dep. 50:8–15.)

59. The most significant divergence between Hamilton and Tumlin’s

recollections of the May 18 Meeting, and the most noteworthy to the issue of implied

waiver, is that Tumlin recalled that they mutually agreed to the June 5 departure

date. Tumlin remembers telling Hamilton that he had several closings at the end of

May so the earliest that he could leave was June 5. (Tumlin Dep. 56:18–57:2.)

Tumlin says that he is certain that he is the one who introduced the June 5 departure

date, but that Hamilton was “agreeable to that date,” though Tumlin did not recall

exactly what Hamilton said to express his agreement.5 (Tumlin Dep. 57:18–58:6.)

5 Tuggle Duggins suggested that Tumlin tried to amend his version of what transpired at the

May 18 Meeting in his deposition with his subsequently submitted affidavit. The Court disagrees. While it is true that “a party opposing a motion for summary judgment cannot create a genuine issue of material fact by filing an affidavit contradicting his prior sworn testimony,” Pinczkowski v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 153 N.C. App. 435, 440, 571 S.E.2d 4, 7 (2002), Therefore, it is possible that a jury could find that Hamilton impliedly waived the

Notice Requirement by orally and explicitly accepting Tumlin’s June 5 departure date

at the May 18 Meeting.

60. Following the May 18 Meeting, Tumlin sent an e-mail with his

Resignation Letter attached to Hamilton and Osteen on Tuesday, May 19, 2015. (See

Tumlin Resignation E-mail & Letter.) In the Resignation Letter, Tumlin stated,

[t]hank you for taking the time to discuss my proposed departure from the Firm. I truly appreciate the points you made about possible Firm changes and timing. I have considered each of your points carefully. Regardless, I have determined that it is in my best interest, both personally and professionally, to depart. ... Several client closings are scheduled during the last week of May, so Friday, June 5, will be my last day at the Firm. I am not that busy and that date should allow ample time to complete any post-closing matters and get my affairs in order.

(Tumlin Resignation E-mail & Letter at 3.) Hamilton replied to Tumlin’s e-mail four

minutes later, beginning with “Wayne–acknowledging your letter to me today with

notice [of] your resignation effective June 5th . . . .” (Tumlin Aff. Ex. C, ECF No. 68.2.)

Hamilton believes that he was on the phone with Osteen when he received the

Resignation Letter, and discussed his feelings of discontent over it with her.

(Hamilton Dep. 52:7–53:10.)

61. Hamilton states that he was surprised when he received the Resignation

Letter almost immediately after the May 18 Meeting. Even though Tumlin told

Tumlin merely stated in his affidavit that Hamilton indicated that “the [F]irm would accept the departure date of 5 June 2015,” (Tumlin Aff. ¶ 3). Tumlin made a statement to the same effect in his prior deposition. In neither instance did Tumlin state the specific conduct or words that Hamilton used to communicate his agreement. Hamilton that it was a “tough ask” to request that he stay at the Firm for another

year, Hamilton says he countered by asking Tumlin to stay for at least a few months

because the Firm was bringing in a consultant that might lead to changes at the Firm,

thereby potentially assuaging Tumlin’s concerns about staying. (Hamilton Dep.

45:13–20.) Furthermore, Hamilton inferred from the conversation that Tumlin was

in no rush to leave as he told Hamilton that he had no plans on where he would go

after departing the Firm or how to go about setting up an office. (Hamilton Dep.

45:1–7.) Tumlin too recalls discussing the consultant; however, he says that the issue

was whether Hamilton still wanted Tumlin to meet with the consultant

“notwithstanding the fact that [he] was leaving.” (Tumlin Dep. 55:20–25.)

62. Viewing the evidence presented in the light most favorable to Tumlin,

as the Court is required to do, the Court concludes that Tumlin has presented a

forecast of evidence from which a jury could reasonably find that Tuggle Duggins’

impliedly waived the Notice Requirement. There are obviously issues of credibility

that only a jury may resolve.

63. Furthermore, the Court is mindful of the North Carolina Supreme

Court’s admonition that “[s]ince intent is an operation of the mind it should be proven

and found as fact and is rarely to be inferred as a matter of law.” Lefkowitz, 204 N.C.

at 454, 168 S.E. at 519; see Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Domtar Corp., 204 F. Supp. 3d 731,

740 (D. Del. 2016) (citation omitted) (“The question of waiver is normally a jury

question, unless the facts are undisputed and give rise to only one reasonable

inference.”). Therefore, because there are issues of material fact regarding whether the parties are bound by the Firm Policy, and whether Hamilton waived the Notice

Requirement on behalf of Tuggle Duggins, the Firm is not entitled to summary

judgment. See Hovnanian Land Inv. Grp., LLC v. Annapolis Towne Ctr. at Parole,

LLC, 421 Md. 94, 123, 25 A.3d 967, 984 (2011) (“Given the highly factual nature of

the waiver inquiry, it is an uncommon case in which the issue can be resolved by

summary judgment.”).

B. The Court defers ruling on Tumlin’s North Carolina Wage & Hour Act claim

64. Tumlin also asserts a claim to compensation under the North Carolina

Wage and Hour Act (the “Wage & Hour Act”). The Wage & Hour Act governs, among

other things, the payment of earned wages. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-25.1(b). Wages are

defined as “compensation for labor or services rendered by an employee” and include

“severance pay” and “other amounts promised when the employer has a policy or a

practice of making such payments.” § 95-25.2(16). An employee is simply defined as

“any individual employed by an employer.” § 95-25.2(4). The Wage & Hour Act

requires that:

employees whose employment is discontinued for any reason shall be paid all wages due on or before the next regular payday . . . . Such wages may not be forfeited unless the employee has been notified . . . of the employer’s policy or practice which results in forfeiture.

§ 95-25.7; see § 95-25.13 (listing requirements for adequate notice to

employees).

65. If an employee is entitled to recover unpaid wages under the Wage &

Hour Act, then the employer owes the unpaid compensation plus interest at the legal rate of eight percent per annum from the date that each amount first came due. See

§ 95-25.22(a); § 24-1. Additionally, a court shall award liquidated damages equal to

the unpaid wages plus interest (effectively double damages plus interest), unless the

employer shows that it had reasonable grounds to believe that it did not violate the

Wage & Hour Act; then the court may award partial or no liquidated damages. § 25-

22(a1). Finally, the court may award reasonable costs, fees, and attorneys’ fees to a

successful employee, or to the employer if the employee’s action was frivolous. § 95-

25.22(d).

66. Both parties agree that Tumlin was an employee of the Firm until his

termination. (See Am. Answer ¶ 52.) However, under the present record, the nature

and extent of the services that Tumlin is claiming compensation owed for under his

Wage & Hour Act claim is somewhat unclear. Tumlin states that prior to his

departure from the Firm, he “performed legal services for clients of the [F]irm,” “billed

fees to clients for such services and [the Firm] collected such fees,” and that he was

entitled to compensation for that work. (Tumlin Aff. ¶ 9.) Following his departure,

Tumlin says that he continued to work on pre-billing, billing adjustments, production

shifts, file transfers, and collection issues to help the Firm finish the fiscal year, and

was not compensated for those services either. (Tumlin Aff. ¶ 8.)

67. However, most significantly, Tumlin has not adequately qualified the

services underlying his claims as “wages,” within the meaning of the Wage & Hour

Act. Tumlin was a shareholder, director, and officer in addition to an employee at

the time of his resignation. It is unclear pursuant to which of these statuses the amounts he now claims are due to him should be attributed, and application of the

statute may depend on that attribution. Consequently, material issues of fact remain

which preclude the Court from deciding the Wage & Hour Act claim at summary

judgment. At trial Tumlin will bear the burden of producing evidence of specific

services performed, demonstrating that those services are employee services under

the Wage & Hour Act, and the value of those services. The Court need not consider

remedies or defenses under the Wage & Hour Act until Tumlin first proves a basis

for the Act to apply.

C. The Court defers ruling on Tumlin’s unjust enrichment claim

68. In the alternative to his breach of contract claim, Tumlin contends that

Tuggle Duggins was unjustly enriched by his services. By its nature, the claim is an

alternative to a contract claim, and is not a substitute for liability where the claim is

the subject of a contract but a breach of that contract has not been proven. Unjust

enrichment is a claim in quasi or implied contract, see Booe v. Shadrick, 322 N.C. 567,

570, 369 S.E.2d 554, 556 (1988), that arises when one party renders services for the

benefit of another without an express contract and the law implies a promise to pay

fair compensation. Atlantic Coast Line R.R. Co. v. State Highway Comm’n of N.C.,

268 N.C. 92, 95–96, 150 S.E.2d 70, 73 (1966). A claim for unjust enrichment requires

the plaintiff to prove that: (1) the plaintiff conferred a benefit on another party, (2)

the other party consciously accepted the benefit, and (3) the benefit was not conferred

gratuitously or by an interference in the affairs of the other party. See Islet Scis., Inc.

v. Brighthaven Ventures, LLC, No. 15 CVS 16388, 2017 NCBC LEXIS 4, at * 16 (N.C. Super. Ct. Jan. 12, 2017) (citing Se. Shelter Corp. v. BTU, Inc., 154 N.C. App. 321,

330, 572 S.E.2d 200, 206 (2002)). If there is an express contract between the parties,

it will govern and the law will not imply one. See Booe, 322 N.C. at 570, 368 S.E.2d

at 556; see also Vetco Concrete Co. v. Troy Lumber Co., 256 N.C. 709, 713, 124 S.E.2d

905, 908 (1962).

69. Tumlin claims that the Firm has been unjustly enriched in an amount

in excess of $300,000 because he worked for ten months for the fiscal year of 2015,

and while the Firm billed and collected revenue for that work, Tumlin has only been

partially compensated for it. (Compl. ¶¶ 47–49; Tumlin Aff. ¶¶ 8–9.) On its face, this

appears to be a restatement of Tumlin’s contract claim, and as such, an unjust

enrichment claim would not normally lie. However, Tumlin additionally avers that

he continued to do work for the benefit of the Firm following his departure by

“reviewing pre-bills, billing adjustments, production shifts, transfer of files, and

collection issues” all at the behest of Osteen. (Tumlin Aff. ¶ 8.) These matters are

extra-contractual, however, it is not presently clear whether Tumlin provided those

services gratuitously or because his professional obligations required that he do so.

70. North Carolina law allows a plaintiff to plead alternative theories of

recovery based on the same conduct or transaction. See N.C. Gen Stat. § 1A-1, Rule

8(e)(2). While Tumlin cannot use an unjust enrichment claim to insulate his potential

failure to prove his contract claim, it is not clear at this time whether his evidence

presented at trial will include gratuitous extra-contractual services, the value of which the Firm accepted. Therefore, the Court defers its final consideration of the

unjust enrichment claim until the evidentiary record is fully presented at trial.

D. The Notice Requirement is not void as a matter of public policy

71. Finally, the Court considers Tumlin’s contention that the Notice

Requirement violates public policy because it constitutes a harmful and arbitrary

restriction on clients’ rights to select legal counsel and creates an unreasonable time

restraint on lawyers who elect to leave the Firm. (Br. Opp’n Summ. J. 20.) Tuggle

Duggins rather contends that Tumlin’s declaratory judgment claim will be completely

determined by his breach of contract claim, so there is no case or controversy which

cannot be resolved by an action for money damages. (See Am. Answer 9.)

72. The power of the courts to enter declaratory judgments is a statutory

one provided by the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act (the “Declaratory Judgment

Act”). See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-253. The Declaratory Judgment Act is “remedial” and

“its purpose is to settle and to afford relief from uncertainty and insecurity with

respect to rights, status, and other legal relations, and it is to be liberally construed

and administered.” § 1-264. A declaratory judgment action must involve an actual

controversy, however, “plaintiffs are not required to allege or prove that a traditional

cause of action exists against defendants in order to establish an actual controversy.”

Goldston v. State, 361 N.C. 26, 33, 637 S.E.2d 876, 881 (2006) (citation omitted)

(internal quotation marks omitted). Furthermore, courts have the power to grant a

declaratory judgment “whether or not further relief is or could be claimed.” N.C. Gen.

Stat. § 1-253. 73. Whether or not to afford a declaratory judgment to a party is a matter

expressly within the discretion of the trial courts. Augur v. Augur, 356 N.C. 582, 587,

573 S.E.2d 125, 129–30 (2002) (citing N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-257). “A declaratory

judgment should issue (1) when [it] will serve a useful purpose in clarifying and

settling the legal relations at issue, and (2) when it will terminate and afford relief

from the uncertainty, insecurity and controversy giving rise to the proceeding.”

Conner v. N.C. Council of State, 365 N.C. 242, 258, 716 S.E.2d 836, 846 (2011)

(alteration in original) (quoting Goldston, 361 N.C. at 33, 637 S.E.2d at 881). “[A]

declaratory judgment action is appropriate when it will ‘alleviat[e] uncertainty in the

interpretation of [a] written instrument[].’” Integon Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Helping Hands

Specialized Transp., Inc., 233 N.C. App. 652, 658, 758 S.E.2d 27, 32 (2014)

(alterations in original) (citing Danny’s Towing 2, Inc. v. N.C. Dep’t of Crime Control

& Pub. Safety, 213 N.C. App. 375, 382, 715 S.E.2d 176, 181 (2011)).

74. It is appropriate for a court to “determine the validity and enforceability

of a contract under the Declaratory Judgment Act.” Bueltel v. Lumber Mut. Ins. Co.,

134 N.C. App. 626, 630, 518 S.E.2d 205, 208 (1999) (noting the Court had held prior

that a contingency fee contract was void as being against public policy pursuant to

the Act); see also Calhoun v. WHA Med. Clinic, PLLC, 178 N.C. App. 585, 596, 632

S.E.2d 563, 570 (2006) (citing Kadis v. Britt, 224 N.C. 154, 158, 29 S.E.2d 543, 545

(1944)) (“[S]ince the determinative question is one of public policy, the reasonableness

and validity of the contract is a question for the court . . . to be determined from the

contract itself . . . .”). 75. A court may hold an agreement that is contrary to public policy illegal

and void. Cauble v. Trexler, 227 N.C. 307, 311, 42 S.E.2d 77, 80 (1947). An agreement

is against public policy if it tends to injure “the public confidence in the purity of the

administration of the law.” Id. In considering whether an agreement should be

declared void a court “does not consider the advantages or interests of either party to

the contract” but instead whether “injury to the public is substantial, and not

theoretical or problematical.” Electrova Co. v. Spring Garden Ins. Co., 156 N.C. 232,

235, 72 S.E. 306, 307 (1911).

76. In the present context, Rule 5.6 of the North Carolina Rules of

Professional Conduct prevents an attorney from entering into an agreement which

restricts his or her right to practice because it not only limits the professional

autonomy of the attorney, but also limits the ability of the client to choose an

attorney. N.C. Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 5.6 cmt. 1 (2003); see NCSB 2007 Formal

Ethics Opinion 6 (April 20, 2007) (finding that even where an agreement does not

impose geographical or temporal restrictions on competitive activity, it is still

unethical if it decreases the buy-back value of firm shares because the departing

shareholder attorney retains clients of the firm); NCSB 2001 Formal Ethics Opinion

10 (Jan. 18, 2002) (finding that an agreement that reduces the amount of deferred

compensation payable to a shareholder-attorney that departs a firm and engages in

competitive activity within a 50-mile radius violates the rules because it creates a

specific financial disincentive). 77. Tumlin suggests that the Firm Policy mandates a choice between two

paths for a departing attorney: forfeit post-termination compensation by leaving in

less than 30 days even if necessary to respond to client need, or compromise a client’s

interests by remaining with the Firm for the requisite 30-day period in order preserve

a right to post-termination compensation. Having presented that stark choice,

Tumlin argues that the Firm Policy must fail because it creates a disincentive for

leaving and honoring the ethical obligation that an attorney has to her client. (Br.

Opp’n Summ. J. 20–21.)

78. Tuggle Duggins counters that the Firm Policy does not create a financial

disincentive because, by offering post-termination compensation conditioned on

notice, it only confers a gratuitous interest in ongoing collections to which the

departing attorney would not otherwise be entitled.

79. The Court has carefully considered the ethics opinions on which Tumlin

relies and finds that the circumstances of this case are easily contrasted. This aspect

of the Firm Policy differs with the agreements considered in the formal ethics

opinions cited above, which both reduced the amount of compensation that

shareholder-attorneys would otherwise be entitled to in the form of deferred

compensation and share buy-back. In contrast, Tumlin acknowledges that the Firm

bought back his share without any issue. (See Tumlin Dep. 42:21–23.)

80. Additionally, the Firm Policy does not restrict competitive activity by

departing attorneys in any manner, and does not decline post-termination

compensation on the basis that the departing attorney takes Firm clients. (See Def.’s Summ. J. Br. 18–19); see also NCSB 2008 Formal Ethics Opinion 8 (Oct. 24, 2008)

(finding that agreements dividing legal fees following an attorney’s departure must

be reasonable and not penalize the attorney for taking clients with her). Therefore,

none of the factors that have informed the State Bar’s decisions to declare attorney

compensation agreements unethical in the past are present in this Firm Policy.

81. While it is possible in the abstract that in order to immediately provide

services to a client with which the Firm has a conflict of interest an attorney would

be required to relinquish post-termination compensation by leaving in less than 30

days, the North Carolina State Bar is not absolute regarding its prohibition of non-

compete agreements for lawyers. Tuggle Duggins accurately points out that lawyers

may sell law firms along with goodwill for a higher price so long as they do not

compete with the firm in the immediate area. See N.C. Rules of Prof’l Conduct R.

1.17(a). Rule 5.6 also allows restrictions on retiring attorneys. Id. at R. 5.6(a).

Neither party discusses the possibility that both the Firm and the departing attorney

could reach an alternative agreement if extraordinary circumstances occurred so as

to cause a competition between ethical duties owed by the departing attorney and

compliance with the Notice Requirement. Therefore, a hypothetical extreme should

not serve to nullify the Notice Requirement in the Firm Policy.

82. Because the Firm Policy does not create any restrictions on a departing

attorney’s ability to practice law, does not deny compensation on the basis that a

departing attorney retains some of the Firm’s clients, and does not create a financial

disincentive because it does not deny compensation that an attorney would otherwise be entitled to, the Notice Requirement does not contravene public policy. Tuggle

Duggins’ Motion on Tumlin’s declaratory judgment claim is consequently granted.

VI. CONCLUSION

83. For the reasons stated above, Tuggle Duggins’ Motion is GRANTED in

part, DENIED in part, and DEFERRED in part as follows:

a. GRANTED on Tumlin’s breach of contract claim to the extent that it is

predicated on the Offer Letter alone being the source of Tumlin’s post-

termination compensation rights;

b. DENIED on Tumlin’s claim that his entitlement to post-termination

compensation is derived from the Firm Policy;

c. DEFERRED on Tumlin’s North Carolina Wage & Hour Act claim;

d. DEFERRED on Tumlin’s unjust enrichment claim;

e. GRANTED on Tumlin’s declaratory judgment claim.

84. On or before 30 days from the date of this Order & Opinion, the parties

shall advise the Court of at least two dates in the first half of 2019 on which they will

be prepared for trial, and submit a proposed schedule for any further pre-trial

proceedings consistent with Business Court Rule 12.3. The Court will then set a date

for trial.

SO ORDERED, this the 18th day of December, 2018.

/s/ James L. Gale James L. Gale Senior Business Court Judge