{
  "id": 2676393,
  "name": "WACHOVIA BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, N.C., Executor and Trustee under the Will of WILLIAM ELMO BAKER v. MIKE RUBISH",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. Rubish",
  "decision_date": "1981-02-17",
  "docket_number": "No. 8014DC571",
  "first_page": "662",
  "last_page": "665",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "50 N.C. App. 662"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "189 S.E. 2d 643",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "14 N.C. App. 685",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8553022
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/14/0685-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "109 S.E. 26",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "year": 1921,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "182 N.C. 366",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8655991
      ],
      "year": 1921,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/182/0366-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 358,
    "char_count": 7920,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.789,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.6922169990516086e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2943005557466864
    },
    "sha256": "d61c834703f868cd36893b3527889728c42728442ff4bf36bc322765438dda3d",
    "simhash": "1:a126a5a2cd619fae",
    "word_count": 1258
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:39:05.008611+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges WELLS and HILL concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "WACHOVIA BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, N.C., Executor and Trustee under the Will of WILLIAM ELMO BAKER v. MIKE RUBISH"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nThe trial judge acted in accordance with the law when he denied plaintiff\u2019s motions for a directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. In an ejectment action, plaintiff must establish the landlord-tenant relationship between plaintiff and defendant, and that defendant is holding over after the expiration of the term set out in the lease. N.C.G.S. 42-26(1). Defendant\u2019s averments that the lease had been renewed for an additional term, and the subsequent evidence presented by defendant in support of that contention, established a question of fact for the jury as to whether defendant was holding over after the expiration of the lease term. See, Poindexter v. Call, 182 N.C. 366, 109 S.E. 26 (1921). Moreover, defendant presented evidence that plaintiff accepted defendant\u2019s implied renewal during negotiations concerning the value and purchase of defendant\u2019s interest in the lease.\nPlaintiff was not entitled to a directed verdict or judgment n.o.v. on either of defendant\u2019s claims of waiver of formal renewal by the plaintiff or estoppel. Whether a landlord has waived provisions in the lease agreement regarding the manner of renewal of the lease for another term is a question of fact to be decided by the jury, as is the application of the doctrine of estoppel. See, Treadwell v. Goodwin, 14 N.C. App. 685, 189 S.E. 2d 643 (1972). Defendant presented evidence that even though the Bank found no formal renewal notices from defendant among Baker\u2019s business papers, plaintiff never advised defendant that he must provide written notice of his intention to renew the lease for another term. Defendant\u2019s evidence tended to show defendant had a continuing relationship of several years with the plaintiff through the Loan Department, and extensive negotiations concerning the lease with the plaintiff\u2019s employees in the Trust Department. Defendant presented evidence that the useful life of his improvements to the property was forty years and that improvements were made within the period for renewal of the lease. We hold that the evidence was not insufficient as a matter of law on defendant\u2019s defenses of waiver and estoppel.\nPlaintiff urges this Court to hold that defendant was disqualified from relying on the equitable defenses of waiver and estoppel because of his attempt to use a fabricated letter as evidence of compliance with the express terms of the lease agreement. We decline. The defendant withdrew both the defense and the letter prior to trial and apologized to the court for his misconduct. While we do not condone the activities of defendant in regard to the letter, neither will we use the \u201cclean hands doctrine\u201d to benefit plaintiff in this matter. The doctrine that the courts will not lend their aid to those who come into court with \u201cunclean hands\u201d is to protect the integrity of the courts, not to benefit the opposing party. See, generally, 30 C.J.S., Equity \u00a7 93 (1965).\nPlaintiff\u2019s request for a new trial is denied. We find no error in the judge\u2019s charge concerning the legal elements of waiver or regarding the contentions of the parties. Nor do we find that the trial judge unduly prejudiced plaintiff\u2019s case by referring to plaintiff as \u201cBank\u201d in the course of his instructions to the jury. Further, the testimony of Jerry Rucker concerning defendant\u2019s long-term dealings with plaintiff\u2019s Loan Department, while obviously prejudicial to plaintiff\u2019s case was not error. The testimony was relevant to the kind of relationship which existed between plaintiff and defendant.\nFor the reasons discussed, we find no prejudicial error in the trial.\nNo error.\nJudges WELLS and HILL concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ARNOLD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Newsom, Graham, Hedrick, Murray, Bryson and Kennon, by Robert B. Glenn, Jr., for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Claude V. Jones for defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "WACHOVIA BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, N.C., Executor and Trustee under the Will of WILLIAM ELMO BAKER v. MIKE RUBISH\nNo. 8014DC571\n(Filed 17 February 1981)\nLandlord and Tenant \u00a7 14\u2014 holding over after expiration of lease \u2014 jury question\nIn an action for summary ejectment, defendant\u2019s averments that the lease had been renewed for an additional term, and the subsequent evidence presented by defendant in support of that contention, established a question of fact for the jury as to whether defendant was holding over after the expiration of the lease term; moreover, plaintiff was not entitled to a directed verdict or judgment n.o.v. on either of defendant\u2019s claims of waiver of formal renewal by plaintiff or estoppel, since defendant presented evidence that, even though plaintiff found no formal renewal notices from defendant among deceased landlord\u2019s business papers, plaintiff never advised defendant that he must provide written notice of his intention to renew the lease for another term; defendant\u2019s evidence tended to show that he had a continuing relationship of several years with plaintiff through the loan department, and extensive negotiations concerning the lease with the plaintiffs employees in the trust department; defendant presented evidence that the useful life of his improvements to the property was forty years and that improvements were made within the period for renewal of the lease; and defendant was not disqualified from relying on the equitable defenses of waiver and estoppel because of his attempt to use a fabricated letter as evidence of compliance with the express terms of the lease agreement, as defendant withdrew both the defense and the letter prior to trial and apologized to the court for his misconduct.\nAPPEAL by plaintiff from LaBarre, Judge. Judgment filed 14 January 1980 in District Court, DURHAM County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 8 January 1981.\nPlaintiff, Wachovia Bank and Trust Company, as Trustee and Executor under the will of William Elmo Baker, instituted this action in summary ejectment against the defendant, Mike Rubish. The case was removed to District Court pursuant to agreement between the parties. Plaintiffs complaint alleges that a lease between defendant and William Baker for the disputed property expired on 30 April 1979 and defendant\u2019s failure to provide plaintiff with written notice of his intention to renew the lease not later than ninety days prior to the expiration of the term, on 30 April 1979, as provided in the lease agreement, entitles plaintiff to immediate possession under the terms of Baker\u2019s will.\nDefendant specifically denied plaintiff\u2019s interests in the property and generally denied the allegations in the complaint. Defendant further affirmatively pled written notice of his intention to renew the lease to Kathleen Baker, waiver of the requirement for written notice by the Bakers, failure of plaintiff to comply with the terms of the lease, and equitable estoppel against the plaintiff. Prior to trial, defendant filed a notice of abandonment and withdrawal of the defense concerning written notice to Kathleen Baker.\nPlaintiff\u2019s evidence tended to show that the lease expressly required written notice of defendant\u2019s intention to renew the lease prior to ninety days before the end of the present term. The plaintiff\u2019s witnesses testified that at no time did the plaintiff Bank receive any notification, either written or oral, that defendant intended to renew the lease for a third five year period.\nDefendant\u2019s evidence tended to show that he understood the lease was a forty year lease and that it did not require formal renewal even though he was aware of the renewal provisions in the written document. The evidence for defendant further tended to show that following William Baker\u2019s death there were extensive negotiations between defendant and plaintiff concerning the sale of defendant\u2019s interests in the leased property to the Bank. Defendant received notice to vacate the leased premises on 10 May 1979. but refused to vacate and plaintiff filed this action. The jury found for defendant, from which plaintiff appeals.\nNewsom, Graham, Hedrick, Murray, Bryson and Kennon, by Robert B. Glenn, Jr., for plaintiff appellant.\nClaude V. Jones for defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0662-01",
  "first_page_order": 688,
  "last_page_order": 691
}