{ "id": 2557296, "name": "CAROLYN STANLEY and RALPH ALLEN TRIVETTE v. JOHN MOORE aka JOHN TYREE", "name_abbreviation": "Stanley v. Moore", "decision_date": "1995-03-03", "docket_number": "No. 114PA94", "first_page": "717", "last_page": "725", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "339 N.C. 717" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "439 S.E.2d 250", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "113 N.C. App. 523", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8523359 ], "year": 1994, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/113/0523-01" ] }, { "cite": "89 ALR4th 854", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 4th", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "35 ALR4th 12", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 4th", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "89 ALR3d 399", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 3d", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "71 N.C. App. 113", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8524116 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/71/0113-01" ] }, { "cite": "437 S.E.2d 374", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "recovery of punitive damages under a common law claim and attorney's fees pursuant to an unfair practices claim not prohibited where recoveries serve different interests and are not based on the same conduct" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "335 N.C. 183", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2529224 ], "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "recovery of punitive damages under a common law claim and attorney's fees pursuant to an unfair practices claim not prohibited where recoveries serve different interests and are not based on the same conduct" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/335/0183-01" ] }, { "cite": "392 S.E.2d 89", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "326 N.C. 488", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 5304682, 5306445 ], "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/326/0488-02", "/nc/326/0488-01" ] }, { "cite": "388 S.E.2d 127", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "132" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "326 N.C. 219", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 5309520 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "227-28" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/326/0219-01" ] }, { "cite": "342 S.E.2d 57", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "noting that when the same course of conduct supports claims for fraud and for an unfair and deceptive trade practice, recovery can be had on either claim, but not on both" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "80 N.C. App. 333", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8523716 ], "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "noting that when the same course of conduct supports claims for fraud and for an unfair and deceptive trade practice, recovery can be had on either claim, but not on both" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/80/0333-01" ] }, { "cite": "79 S.E.2d 880", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1954, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "stating that the purpose of an election of remedies is not to prevent recourse to any remedy, but to prevent a plaintiff from recovering inconsistent remedies or from receiving double redress of a single wrong" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "239 N.C. 360", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626959 ], "year": 1954, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "stating that the purpose of an election of remedies is not to prevent recourse to any remedy, but to prevent a plaintiff from recovering inconsistent remedies or from receiving double redress of a single wrong" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/239/0360-01" ] }, { "cite": "276 S.E.2d 397", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "302 N.C. 539", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8567785 ], "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/302/0539-01" ] }, { "cite": "331 S.E.2d 677", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "involving violation of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 95-47.6, which regulates private personnel services" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "314 N.C. 90", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4696461 ], "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "involving violation of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 95-47.6, which regulates private personnel services" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/314/0090-01" ] }, { "cite": "343 S.E.2d 174", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "action based on violation of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 58-54.4 (now \u00a7 58-63-15), which regulated the insurance industry" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "316 N.C. 461", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4694338 ], "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "action based on violation of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 58-54.4 (now \u00a7 58-63-15), which regulated the insurance industry" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/316/0461-01" ] }, { "cite": "241 S.E.2d 843", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "294 N.C. 441", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573443, 8573515, 8573486, 8573424, 8573462 ], "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/294/0441-02", "/nc/294/0441-05", "/nc/294/0441-04", "/nc/294/0441-01", "/nc/294/0441-03" ] }, { "cite": "239 S.E.2d 574", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "583" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "34 N.C. App. 503", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8550169 ], "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "517" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/34/0503-01" ] }, { "cite": "278 S.E.2d 501", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "narrowing the definition of peaceful self-help by holding that any entry against the tenant's will is a forcible entry" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "303 N.C. 256", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8572768 ], "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "narrowing the definition of peaceful self-help by holding that any entry against the tenant's will is a forcible entry" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/303/0256-01" ] }, { "cite": "414 S.E.2d 87", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "105 N.C. App. 534", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8524173 ], "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/105/0534-01" ] }, { "cite": "394 S.E.2d 478", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "99 N.C. App. 636", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8524431 ], "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/99/0636-01" ] }, { "cite": "321 S.E.2d 537", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "541", "parenthetical": "footnote omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "439 S.E.2d 250", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "252-53" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "113 N.C. App. 523", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8523359 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "527" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/113/0523-01" ] }, { "cite": "71 N.C. App. 113", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8524116 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/71/0113-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 797, "char_count": 18213, "ocr_confidence": 0.747, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.0929143675323716e-07, "percentile": 0.7606470493067357 }, "sha256": "069cac57f5313325d7deae04513daa154c9312d317cd227bfc0db4e2473c0f55", "simhash": "1:2b30b2ff6c2f7454", "word_count": 2897 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:14:35.214532+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Justice ORR did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case." ], "parties": [ "CAROLYN STANLEY and RALPH ALLEN TRIVETTE v. JOHN MOORE aka JOHN TYREE" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "FRYE, Justice.\nThe sole issue presented on this appeal is whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court\u2019s denial of plaintiffs\u2019 claims for treble damages and attorney\u2019s fees under Chapter 75 of the General Statutes of North Carolina (the Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act). Plaintiffs contend that the prohibition against punitive or treble damages in wrongful eviction actions contained in N.C.G.S. \u00a7 42-25.9(a) of the North Carolina Ejectment of Residential Tenants Act, Article 2A, Chapter 42 of the North Carolina General Statutes, does not preclude them from recovering treble damages under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 75-16 and attorney\u2019s fees under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 75-16.1 of the Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act. We agree and, therefore, reverse the Court of Appeals on this issue.\nThe facts and circumstances surrounding this case are as follows: Sometime in July 1990, plaintiffs entered into an oral agreement with defendant\u2019s mother to lease a mobile home owned by defendant for $70.00 per week. Plaintiffs\u2019 household consisted of themselves and four minor children, including a four-month-old infant. At the time plaintiffs leased the mobile home, defendant was living out of state.\nIn mid-February 1991, defendant went to plaintiffs\u2019 home and demanded that they move immediately. Plaintiffs called the Sheriff\u2019s Department. Defendant was advised that summary ejectment procedures were necessary in order to regain possession of the property. That same day, defendant cut the water supply to the residence and removed the thermostat from the water heater.\nThe next day, defendant forced his way into the residence and demanded to know why plaintiffs had not moved. During this encounter, defendant forcibly removed the breaker box from the bedroom wall, leaving exposed live wiring. Although plaintiffs were able to restore electrical service to the residence that day, on or about 22 February, defendant went to the home and again removed the breaker box. Plaintiffs called the electric company to restore electrical service; however, while utility workers were in the process of restoring service, defendant returned to the residence and, using a hatchet, cut the underground electrical wiring leading to the home. Consequently, the utility company could not restore service due to the extensive damage done to the outside lines to the residence. Plaintiffs were left with no water or electricity and were forced to buy bottled water and other sources of heat. Over $200.00 worth of food was spoiled due to lack of refrigeration.\nOn 27 February 1991, plaintiffs filed a complaint in District Court, Caldwell County, alleging that defendant had trespassed on their leasehold property and subjected them to unlawful self-help eviction practices, in violation of the North Carolina Ejectment of Residential Tenants Act and the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act. Plaintiffs sought damages for the above claims from defendant, whom they alleged constructively evicted them from the mobile home they rented. On the same day, a temporary restraining order was issued ordering defendant to restore plaintiffs\u2019 utilities. On 13 March 1991, a preliminary injunction was issued; it also ordered defendant to restore the utilities.\nDefendant failed to respond to the complaint, and on 4 April 1991, plaintiffs filed a motion for entry of default. On that same day, the trial court entered an order for contempt against defendant for his failure to comply with the court\u2019s previous orders of 27 February and 13 March 1991. As part of the contempt order, the trial court ordered defendant to pay to plaintiffs $820.00 in expenses and $1,000 in attorney\u2019s fees.\nOn 5 August 1991, plaintiffs filed a motion for judgment by default. A hearing was held on the issue of damages in District Court, Caldwell County, on 12 September 1991. The trial court found that plaintiffs had been damaged, pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 42-25.9, in the amount of $798.00 in actual damages. The court further awarded plaintiffs $1.00 in nominal damages and $100.00 in punitive damages on the trespass claim. In addition, the court entered a second order for contempt for defendant\u2019s failure to comply with the previous contempt order and ordered defendant to pay $798.00 to plaintiffs (or get set-off in a like amount) and to pay $1,000 in attorney\u2019s fees. The trial court denied plaintiffs\u2019 claim for relief pursuant to the Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act and their application for attorney\u2019s fees. Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act determination and the denial of further attorney\u2019s fees; however, the trial court ruled that it would not reconsider either claim.\nOn plaintiffs\u2019 appeal, the Court of Appeals concluded that plaintiffs had clearly established a claim under the Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act. This conclusion is not challenged on this appeal. However, that court also affirmed the trial court\u2019s denial of treble damages and attorney\u2019s fees under the Act, concluding that its prior decision in Dobbins v. Paul, 71 N.C. App. 113, 321 S.E.2d 537 (1984), and N.C.G.S. \u00a7 42-25.9(a) precluded recovery of punitive or treble damages in actions for wrongful eviction. On 16 June 1994, this Court allowed plaintiffs\u2019 petition for discretionary review of that portion of the Court of Appeals\u2019 decision which denied plaintiffs\u2019 claims for treble damages and attorney\u2019s fees under the Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act.\nIn affirming the trial court\u2019s denial of plaintiffs\u2019 claims for treble damages and attorney\u2019s fees, the Court of Appeals relied upon binding precedent from that court. In Dobbins v. Paul, 71 N.C. App. 113, 321 S.E.2d 537, the plaintiff was wrongfully evicted by her landlords and filed a complaint seeking, inter alia, compensatory damages for wrongful eviction and breach of warranty of quiet enjoyment, punitive damages, treble damages for unfair trade practices, and reasonable attorney\u2019s fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court\u2019s grant of directed verdicts for the defendant landlords on the treble damages and punitive damages claims, stating:\nPlaintiff\u2019s evidence having shown that she was wrongfully evicted . . . after her lease was in effect, plaintiff\u2019s statutory remedy for damages under G.S. 42-25.9(a) attached. . . .\nIn that the statute expressly disallows treble or punitive damages in such cases, it is clear that the trial court correctly allowed defendants\u2019 motion for a directed verdict as to . . . such damages.\nId. at 117, 321 S.E.2d at 541 (footnote omitted).\nWhile constrained to follow the precedent of Dobbins in the present case, the Court of Appeals astutely recognized the danger in limiting tenants, such as plaintiffs, to recovering only their actual damages. Judge (now Justice) Orr wrote for the court:\nWhile we are bound by the rule which denies a tenant recovery of punitive or treble damages as a result of her constructive eviction due to the exclusivity of the remedies under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 42-25.9(a), we note that such a result would appear inappropriate when it is clear that in North Carolina a landlord may be held liable pursuant to G.S. \u00a7 75-1.1 et seq., for merely failing to maintain a rental unit in fit condition. Common sense dictates that if a landlord must make necessary repairs to a rental unit in order to avoid liability for treble damages and attorney\u2019s fees under the Unfair Trade Practices Act, see e.g., Allen [v. Simmons], 99 N.C. App. 636, 394 S.E.2d 478 [(1990)], and Foy [v. Spinks], 105 N.C. App. 534, 414 S.E.2d 87 [(1992)], he should not be able to actively create an uninhabitable condition in the rental unit in order to force a tenant to leave, exposing himself only to actual damages incurred by the tenant under G.S. \u00a7 42-25.9(a). By engaging in intentionally tortious conduct, he could limit his liability, unless a plaintiff elects to forego the remedies of G.S. \u00a7 42-25, and brings suit specifically pursuant to Chapter 75.\nStanley v. Moore, 113 N.C. App. 523, 527, 439 S.E.2d 250, 252-53 (1994). We agree that it is inappropriate to limit a tenant\u2019s recovery to actual damages where a landlord\u2019s conduct violates both the Ejectment of Residential Tenants Act and the Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act and the tenant seeks recovery under both Acts.\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 42-25.9, which designates the remedies available to tenants under the Ejectment of Residential Tenants Act, provides, in pertinent part:\n(a) If any lessor, landlord, or agent removes or attempts to remove a tenant from a dwelling unit in any manner contrary to this Article, the tenant shall be entitled to recover possession or to terminate his lease and the lessor, landlord or agent shall be liable to the tenant for damages caused by the tenant\u2019s removal or attempted removal. Damages in any action brought by a tenant under this Article shall be limited to actual damages as in an action for trespass or conversion and shall not include punitive damages, treble damages or damages for emotional distress.\n(c) The remedies created by this section are supplementary to all existing common-law and statutory rights and remedies.\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 42-25.9 (1994) (emphases added).\nIn deciding that treble damages under the Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act were unavailable in a wrongful eviction action, the Court of Appeals in Dobbins focused only on subsection (a) of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 42-25.9. However, the conclusion reached by the Dobbins court is expressly contradicted by the plain language of subsection (c) of the statute, which provides that the remedies provided under the Ejectment of Residential Tenants Act are supplementary to all existing common law and statutory remedies. We are convinced that the language of subsection (c) expressly preserves the rights of a tenant who is wrongfully evicted to pursue alternative common law and statutory claims for relief, including claims for treble damages and attorney\u2019s fees under the Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act, an Act which predated the enactment of the Ejectment of Residential Tenants Act. Accordingly, we must reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals on this issue. Furthermore, to the extent the Court of Appeals\u2019 decision in Dobbins v. Paul, 71 N.C. App. 113, 321 S.E.2d 537, is inconsistent with this opinion, it is expressly overruled.\nOur interpretation of the statute is supported by the history of landlord/tenant law in this state. Prior to the enactment of the Ejectment of Residential Tenants Act, the common law prohibited forcible reentry by a landlord but allowed a landlord to use peaceful means or to resort to the courts in order to regain possession of the leased premises. See Spinks v. Taylor, 303 N.C. 256, 278 S.E.2d 501 (1981) (narrowing the definition of peaceful self-help by holding that any entry against the tenant\u2019s will is a forcible entry). In 1977, the Court of Appeals held that a landlord\u2019s trespass upon the leased premises, eviction of the tenant without resort to judicial process, and conversion of the tenant\u2019s personal property constituted unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce within the meaning of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 75-1.1. Love v. Pressley, 34 N.C. App. 503, 517, 239 S.E.2d 574, 583 (1977), cert. denied, 294 N.C. 441, 241 S.E.2d 843 (1978).\nIn 1981, the legislature further expanded the protections afforded residential tenants by adopting the Ejectment of Residential Tenants Act, which prohibited all self-help evictions in residential tenancies and mandated judicial proceedings in every eviction. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 42-25.6 (1994) (providing that the summary ejectment procedures of Article 3, Chapter 42A are the proper vehicle for a tenant\u2019s eviction). It is clear that in enacting this statute, the legislature supplanted the common law as to peaceful self-help evictions and created the supplemental remedy of actual damages for such evictions because no such remedy existed at common law. Accordingly, in light of the legislature\u2019s intent to expand the protections afforded residential tenants, we conclude that, in adopting subsection (c) of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 42-25.9 as part of the Act, the legislature intended to specifically preserve \u201call existing common-law and statutory rights and remedies,\u201d including a tenant\u2019s right to pursue an unfair or deceptive practices claim.\nOur interpretation of the statute is also consistent with prior decisions of this Court holding that violations of statutes designed to protect the consuming public and violations of established public policy may constitute unfair and deceptive practices. This Court has previously held that the violation of a statute designed to protect the consuming public may constitute an unfair and deceptive practice, even where the statute itself does not provide for a private right of action. Pearce v. American Defender Life Ins. Co., 316 N.C. 461, 343 S.E.2d 174 (1986) (action based on violation of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 58-54.4 (now \u00a7 58-63-15), which regulated the insurance industry); Winston Realty Co. v. G.H.G., Inc., 314 N.C. 90, 331 S.E.2d 677 (1985) (involving violation of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 95-47.6, which regulates private personnel services). We have also stated that a practice is unfair when it offends established public policy. Marshall v. Miller, 302 N.C. 539, 276 S.E.2d 397 (1981). The Ejectment of Residential Tenants Act undoubtedly is intended to protect the consuming public, specifically consumers of residential rental housing, and also provides for a private cause of action. Furthermore, the Act embodies the public policy of this state, as determined by the legislature, that residential tenants not be evicted through self-help measures without resort to judicial process. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 42-25.6 (\u201cIt is the public policy of the State of North Carolina, in order to maintain the public peace, that a residential tenant shall be evicted,... only in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Article 3 of this Chapter.\u201d). Accordingly, it is clear that conduct which violates the Ejectment of Residential Tenants Act may also constitute a violation of the Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act, thus giving rise to an award of treble damages and attorney\u2019s fees under that Act.\nFurthermore, our conclusion is consistent with the general rule that a party may plead alternative theories of recovery based on the same conduct or transaction and then make an election of remedies. See Smith v. Gulf Oil Corp., 239 N.C. 360, 79 S.E.2d 880 (1954) (stating that the purpose of an election of remedies is not to prevent recourse to any remedy, but to prevent a plaintiff from recovering inconsistent remedies or from receiving double redress of a single wrong); Wilder v. Hodges, 80 N.C. App. 333, 342 S.E.2d 57 (1986) (noting that when the same course of conduct supports claims for fraud and for an unfair and deceptive trade practice, recovery can be had on either claim, but not on both); see also Ellis v. Northern Star, 326 N.C. 219, 227-28, 388 S.E.2d 127, 132 (\u201cPlaintiffs may in proper cases elect to recover either punitive damages under a common law claim or treble damages under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 75-16, but they may not recover both.\u201d), reh\u2019g denied, 326 N.C. 488, 392 S.E.2d 89 (1990). But see United Laboratories, Inc. v. Kuykendall, 335 N.C. 183, 437 S.E.2d 374 (1993) (recovery of punitive damages under a common law claim and attorney\u2019s fees pursuant to an unfair practices claim not prohibited where recoveries serve different interests and are not based on the same conduct).\nFor the foregoing reasons, that portion of the Court of Appeals\u2019 decision that affirmed the trial court\u2019s denial of plaintiffs\u2019 claims for treble damages and attorney\u2019s fees under the Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act is reversed. Consequently, this case is remanded to that court for further remand to District Court, Caldwell County, for further proceedings not inconsistent with this decision.\nREVERSED AND REMANDED.\nJustice ORR did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.", "type": "majority", "author": "FRYE, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Catawba Valley Legal Services, Inc., by Andrew Cogdell, for plaintiff-appellants.", "No brief filed for defendant-appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "CAROLYN STANLEY and RALPH ALLEN TRIVETTE v. JOHN MOORE aka JOHN TYREE\nNo. 114PA94\n(Filed 3 March 1995)\nEjectment \u00a7 37 (NCI4th)\u2014 wrongful eviction \u2014 unfair practice \u2014 recovery of treble damages and attorney fees\nWhere a landlord\u2019s conduct violates both the Ejectment of Residential Tenants Act and the Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act, the prohibition against punitive or treble damages in wrongful eviction actions contained in N.C.G.S. \u00a7 42-25.9(a) of the Ejectment of Residential Tenants Act does not preclude a recovery of treble damages and attorney\u2019s fees under the Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act. The provision of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 42-25.9(c) that the remedies created by the Ejectment of Residential Tenants Act are supplementary to all existing common law and statutory remedies preserves the rights of a tenant who is wrongfully evicted to pursue alternative common law and statutory claims for relief, including claims for treble damages and attorney\u2019s fees under the Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act. The decision of Dobbins v. Paul, 71 N.C. App. 113, is expressly overruled to the extent that it is inconsistent with this opinion. N.C.G.S. \u00a7\u00a7 75-16 and 75-16.1.\nAm Jur 2d, Landlord and Tenant \u00a7 1246; Monopolies, Restraints of Trade, and Unfair Trade Practices \u00a7 735.\nScope and exemptions of state deceptive trade practice and consumer protection acts. 89 ALR3d 399.\nAward of attorneys\u2019 fees in actions under state deceptive trade practice and consumer protection acts. 35 ALR4th 12.\nCoverage of leases under state consumer protection statutes. 89 ALR4th 854.\nJustice Orr did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.\nOn discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-31 of a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals, 113 N.C. App. 523, 439 S.E.2d 250 (1994), affirming a judgment and order, which, inter alia, denied plaintiffs\u2019 claims for treble damages and attorney\u2019s fees under the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act, heard by Jones (Jonathan), J., at the 9 September 1991 session of District Court, Caldwell County. Heard in the Supreme Court 15 February 1995.\nCatawba Valley Legal Services, Inc., by Andrew Cogdell, for plaintiff-appellants.\nNo brief filed for defendant-appellee." }, "file_name": "0717-01", "first_page_order": 755, "last_page_order": 763 }