Sprinkle v. Johnson, NC Court of Appeals, August 3, 2021

Mrs. Sprinkle worked for Dr. Johnson for 17 years; during the last four of those years, she had a romantic and sexual relationship with Dr. Johnson. Mrs. Sprinkle ultimately confessed the affair to her husband and left her job. The Sprinkles did not separate or divorce. Mr. Sprinkle sued Dr. Johnson for alienation of affection and criminal conversation; the complaint and summons were served on Dr. Johnson at his work address.

According to the trial court’s record, the parties then attended mediation and settled the case. The mediator informed the court that the matter had been settled and that the complaint would be dismissed after the terms of the settlement were complete. Sometime later, Dr. Johnson’s attorney filed a motion to withdraw as counsel, and the certificate of service reflects that that motion was served on Dr. Johnson at a residential address. An order allowing withdrawal was entered, but there is nothing in the record to show that the order was served on Dr. Johnson. Mr. Sprinkle’s attorney then wrote to Dr. Johnson at the residential address, asking for his availability for a pre-trial conference. No response was received, and, although no pre-trial conference was held, a pre-trial conference order was entered, containing numerous purported stipulations of the parties as to how the trial would be conducted. A trial date was set, but there is nothing in the record to show that any notice of the trial date was sent to Dr. Johnson.

After a two-day jury trial, at which Dr. Johnson was not present, Mr. Sprinkle was awarded $794,000 in compensatory damages and $1,500,000 in punitive damages. Upon learning of the existence of the jury verdict from a newspaper reporter, Dr. Johnson appealed.

On appeal, Dr. Johnson argued that he was denied due process of law when he was not provided notice of the date, time, and place of trial. The Court of Appeals agreed and vacated the order, noting that “[n]otice and an opportunity to be heard prior to depriving a person of his property are essential elements of due process of law . . .” The Court of Appeals agreed and vacated the trial court’s order. Here, because the record does not reflect that Dr. Johnson received the order allowing his attorney’s withdrawal, the pre-trial order, or any calendaring notice at any address, he did not receive proper notice of trial and is entitled to a new trial.

October 7, 2021/by FamilyLaw