{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ncctapp-24-177-2025-12-03","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ncctapp-24-177-2025-12-03)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-17","fingerprint":"ewai:us:e7344b","proof":"sha256:02ea3fd0abbd356b882171b8e448af3526e74cf79acdb0e5f95d3de723d45e64","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"us:ncctapp-24-177-2025-12-03","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"Front matter","paragraphs":["para_1","para_2","para_3","para_4","para_5","para_6","para_7","para_8","para_9","para_10","para_11","para_12","para_13","para_14","para_15","para_16","para_17","para_18","para_19","para_20","para_21","para_22","para_23","para_24","para_25","para_26","para_27","para_28","para_29","para_30","para_31","para_32","para_33","para_34","para_35","para_36","para_37","para_38","para_39","para_40","para_41","para_42","para_43","para_44","para_45","para_46","para_47","para_48","para_49","para_50","para_51","para_52","para_53","para_54","para_55","para_56","para_57","para_58","para_59","para_60","para_61","para_62","para_63","para_64","para_65","para_66","para_67","para_68","para_69","para_70","para_71","para_72","para_73","para_74","para_75","para_76","para_77","para_78","para_79","para_80","para_81","para_82","para_83","para_84","para_85","para_86","para_87","para_88","para_89","para_90","para_91","para_92","para_93","para_94","para_95","para_96","para_97","para_98","para_99","para_100","para_101","para_102","para_103","para_104","para_105","para_106","para_107","para_108","para_109","para_110","para_111","para_112","para_113","para_114","para_115","para_116","para_117","para_118","para_119","para_120","para_121","para_122","para_123","para_124","para_125","para_126","para_127","para_128","para_129","para_130","para_131","para_132","para_133","para_134","para_135","para_136","para_137","para_138","para_139","para_140","para_141","para_142","para_143","para_144","para_145","para_146","para_147","para_148","para_149","para_150","para_151","para_152","para_153","para_154","para_155","para_156","para_157","para_158","para_159","para_160","para_161","para_162","para_163","para_164","para_165","para_166","para_167","para_168","para_169","para_170","para_171","para_172","para_173","para_174","para_175","para_176","para_177","para_178","para_179","para_180","para_181","para_182","para_183","para_184","para_185","para_186","para_187","para_188","para_189","para_190","para_191","para_192","para_193","para_194","para_195","para_196","para_197","para_198","para_199","para_200","para_201","para_202","para_203","para_204","para_205","para_206","para_207","para_208","para_209","para_210","para_211","para_212","para_213","para_214","para_215","para_216","para_217","para_218","para_219","para_220","para_221","para_222","para_223","para_224","para_225","para_226","para_227","para_228","para_229","para_230","para_231","para_232","para_233","para_234","para_235","para_236","para_237","para_238","para_239","para_240","para_241"],"kind":"front_matter"},{"title":"Under section 75-1.1, the first question is whether the defendant “ ‘committed","paragraphs":["para_242","para_243","para_244","para_245","para_246","para_247","para_248","para_249","para_250","para_251","para_252","para_253","para_254","para_255","para_256","para_257","para_258","para_259","para_260","para_261","para_262","para_263","para_264","para_265","para_266","para_267","para_268","para_269","para_270","para_271","para_272","para_273","para_274","para_275","para_276","para_277","para_278","para_279","para_280","para_281","para_282","para_283","para_284","para_285","para_286","para_287","para_288","para_289","para_290","para_291","para_292","para_293","para_294","para_295","para_296","para_297","para_298","para_299","para_300","para_301","para_302","para_303","para_304","para_305","para_306","para_307","para_308","para_309","para_310","para_311","para_312","para_313","para_314","para_315","para_316","para_317","para_318","para_319","para_320","para_321","para_322","para_323","para_324","para_325","para_326","para_327","para_328","para_329","para_330","para_331","para_332","para_333","para_334","para_335","para_336","para_337","para_338","para_339"],"kind":"assessment"}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"No. COA24-177","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"Filed 3 December 2025","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"Wake County, No. 20CVS000778-910","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"WILLIAM MICHAEL ROACH and JULIE G. ROACH, Plaintiffs,","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"v.","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant.","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"Appeal by Plaintiffs from order entered 2 June 2023 by Judge Vinston M.","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"Rozier, Jr. in Wake County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 13 August","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"2024.","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"Davis Hartman & Wright, LLP, by R. Daniel Gibson, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, by B. Chad Ewing, for Defendant-Appellee.","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"CARPENTER, Judge.","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"William M. Roach and Julie G. Roach (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) appeal from the","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"trial court’s order granting summary judgment for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"(“Defendant”) on Plaintiffs’ unfair and deceptive trade practices claim. On appeal,","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"Plaintiffs argue the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"Defendant. After careful review, we affirm.","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"I. Factual & Procedural Background","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"In December 2001, Plaintiffs purchased a lakefront home in Cornelius, North","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"Carolina (the “Property”). In May 2003, Plaintiffs refinanced the Property through","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"Wachovia Bank, N.A. (“Wachovia”). In the refinancing transaction, Plaintiffs","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"ROACH V. WELLS FARGO BANK, NAT’L ASS’N","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"Opinion of the Court","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"- 2 -","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"provided Wachovia with a promissory note denoting its obligations to Wachovia.","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"Plaintiffs also granted Wachovia a lien against the Property, which was duly recorded","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"in Mecklenburg County (the “Deed of Trust”).","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"In December 2008, Defendant acquired Wachovia via merger and assumed","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"control over Plaintiffs’ obligations to Wachovia. In 2009, Plaintiffs began to","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"experience financial difficulties and struggled to maintain their payment obligations","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"for the Property. In 2011, Plaintiffs applied for a loan modification and Defendant","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"modified their loan. After the 2011 modification, however, Plaintiffs submitted four","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"additional modification applications: two in 2014, one in 2017, and one in 2018.","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"Defendant denied all four applications.","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"After Plaintiffs defaulted, Defendant sought to foreclose under the terms of the","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"Deed of Trust. In 2015, the trial court entered an order allowing foreclosure on the","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"Property. On 17 December 2015, Plaintiffs received a notice of foreclosure and notice","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"of the 19 January 2016 sale date for the Property. On 4 January 2016, Plaintiffs were","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"contacted by Defendant’s representative, a Home Preservation Specialist, who","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"advised they could contact him if they needed assistance. On 5 January 2016,","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"Plaintiffs contacted Defendant to discuss their options and were informed that the","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"deadline to request assistance had passed the day prior.","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"Subsequently, Plaintiffs’ counsel contacted Defendant about the outstanding","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"obligations on the Property. Defendant informed Plaintiffs that their loan default","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"could be cured and mortgage reinstated by remitting a payment of $105,335.86.","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"ROACH V. WELLS FARGO BANK, NAT’L ASS’N","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"Opinion of the Court","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"- 3 -","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"Additionally, Defendant instructed Plaintiffs that to request a sale postponement,","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"Plaintiffs needed to send proof of funds and a gift letter to Defendant by fax.","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"Defendant advised Plaintiffs that if they submitted the appropriate documentation,","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"the foreclosure sale would not continue while the documents were under review.","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"On 18 January 2016, Plaintiffs’ counsel faxed Defendant a “formal sale","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"postponement request.” The cover page of the fax stated that a gift letter and proof","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"of funds were included in the fax. The “gift letter” was a copy of an email from Tom","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"Sides and Laura Graybeal, individuals who were considering a loan to Plaintiffs to","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"satisfy the requisite payoff. The email stated:","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"To: Wells Fargo","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"We are actively investigating supplying the funds in the","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"amount of $105,335.86 to [Plaintiffs], our brother-in-law","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"and sister, to be applied to cure their mortgage arrearage","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"regarding the [P]roperty . . . . The source of the funds is our","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"personal savings.","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"Signed,","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"Tom Sides and Laura Graybeal","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"Attached to the email was a one-page screen shot of the balance of Sides and","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"Graybeal’s TD Ameritrade account, which contained sufficient funds to cover the","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"balance. On 19 January 2016, the date of the sale, Plaintiffs’ counsel called","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"Defendant about the status of the postponement request. Defendant indicated the","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"documents were “illegible” so Plaintiffs’ counsel resubmitted documents at 11:38 a.m.,","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"ROACH V. WELLS FARGO BANK, NAT’L ASS’N","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"Opinion of the Court","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"- 4 -","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"including a similar cover page, the same “gift letter,” and an additional nine pages","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"containing information about Sides and Graybeal’s TD Ameritrade account.","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"On 20 January 2016, Plaintiffs’ counsel again called Defendant to check the","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"status of the postponement request. Defendant informed counsel that the request","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"had been denied, and the Property had sold at the scheduled foreclosure sale the day","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"prior. On 26 January 2016, Plaintiffs’ counsel called Defendant to inquire about a","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"reinstatement quote.1 Defendant responded that Plaintiffs could not obtain a","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"reinstatement quote because a third-party was “the high bidder at Plaintiffs’","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"foreclosure sale.” As a result, Plaintiff-Julie filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy to avoid","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"losing the Property.","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"On 16 January 2020, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendant for unfair","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"and deceptive trade practices. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant made a false","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"representation when it “advised the [P]laintiffs that upon the submission of ‘the","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"required documentation,’ the foreclosure sale would not be conducted while the","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"documents were being reviewed.” Further, “[P]laintiffs’ expressed intention and","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"desire to cure the default and maintain possession and ownership of their [Property]”","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"1 “The statutory right to redemption provides that a debtor may terminate the power of sale by","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"tendering the remaining obligation secured by the deed of trust and expenses incurred in the sale of","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"the property . . . within the upset bid period.” Lynn v. Fed. Nat. Mortg. Ass’n, 235 N.C. App. 77, 81","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"n.4, 760 S.E.2d 372, 375 n.4 (2014).","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"ROACH V. WELLS FARGO BANK, NAT’L ASS’N","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"Opinion of the Court","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"- 5 -","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"but Defendant proceeded with the foreclosure sale. In response, Defendant moved","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"for summary judgment on 6 April 2023, arguing that","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"Plaintiffs’ claim fails as a matter of law because the","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"documents submitted by Plaintiffs do not qualify as proof","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"of funds or a gift letter on their face. The “letter” does not","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"state that anyone has or will make a gift of any funds to","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"Plaintiffs. The proof of funds shows that the alleged funds","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"were in a third party’s SEP IRA account and were not funds","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"owned by, controlled by, or available for Plaintiffs’ use.","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"During a 10 May 2023 deposition, Plaintiff-Julie mentioned another potential unfair","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"or deceptive act committed by Defendant. She asserted that Defendant’s refusal to","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"allow the reinstatement of the mortgage pursuant to paragraph 16 of the Deed of","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"Trust—“Borrower’s Right to Reinstate”—during the ten-day upset bid period","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"following the foreclosure sale constituted an unfair and deceptive trade practice.","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"On 15 May 2023, the trial court held a hearing on Defendant’s motion. At the","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"hearing, the trial court heard the parties’ arguments on whether Defendant","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"committed unfair and deceptive trade practices when it: (1) proceeded with the","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"foreclosure sale, despite Plaintiffs’ submission of the gift letter and proof of funds;","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"and (2) refused to allow Plaintiffs to reinstate the loan following the sale, even though","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"the Deed of Trust provided a right of reinstatement. During the hearing, Plaintiffs’","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"counsel moved for summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs. Ultimately, on 2 June","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"2023, the trial court entered an order granting Defendant’s motion for summary","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"judgment.","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"ROACH V. WELLS FARGO BANK, NAT’L ASS’N","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"Opinion of the Court","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"- 6 -","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"In granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the trial court held","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"that Defendant did not commit an unfair or deceptive act when it failed to cancel the","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"foreclosure sale because Plaintiffs “did not provide the required gift letter.” The trial","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"court further held that neither of the two emails constituted a “gift letter.” Finally,","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"the trial court held that Plaintiffs had no right to reinstate their mortgage through","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"the Deed of Trust, and even assuming they did, Defendants did not commit an unfair","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"or deceptive act by refusing to reinstate Plaintiffs’ mortgage during the upset bid","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"period pursuant to the Deed of Trust. On 29 June 2023, Plaintiffs filed notice of","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"appeal.","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"II. Jurisdiction","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"This Court has jurisdiction under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27(b)(1) (2023).","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"III. Issue","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"The issue is whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"favor of Defendant.","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"IV. Analysis","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"Plaintiffs argue the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"of Defendant because: (1) Defendant acted unfairly and deceptively when it sold the","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"Property at foreclosure despite representations to the contrary; (2) Defendant","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"unfairly and deceptively deprived Plaintiffs of their right to reinstate the mortgage;","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"and (3) the interpretation of Plaintiffs’ gift letter raises a genuine issue of material","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"fact. We disagree.","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"ROACH V. WELLS FARGO BANK, NAT’L ASS’N","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"Opinion of the Court","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"- 7 -","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"A. Standard of Review","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":"We review appeals from summary judgment orders de novo. N.C. Farm","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., Inc. v. Herring, 385 N.C. 419, 422, 894 S.E.2d 709, 712 (2023).","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"“‘Under a de novo review, [this Court] considers the matter anew and freely","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"substitutes its own judgment’ for that of the lower tribunal.” Craig ex rel. Craig v.","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"New Hanover Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 363 N.C. 334, 337, 678 S.E.2d 351, 354 (2009)","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"(quoting In re Greens of Pine Glen Ltd. P’ship, 356 N.C. 642, 647, 576 S.E.2d 316, 319","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"(2003)).","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"A trial court should grant summary judgment only if “the pleadings,","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"56(c) (2023). “An issue is material if the facts alleged would constitute a legal defense,","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"or would affect the result of the action . . . . The issue is denominated ‘genuine’ if it","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"may be maintained by substantial evidence.” Koontz v. City of Winston-Salem, 280","paragraph_id":"para_162"},{"text":"N.C. 513, 518, 186 S.E.2d 897, 901 (1972).","paragraph_id":"para_163"},{"text":"At summary judgment, the movant “bears the initial burden of demonstrating","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Pennington,","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"356 N.C. 571, 579, 573 S.E.2d 118, 124 (2002). “If the movant successfully makes","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"such a showing, the burden then shifts to the nonmovant to come forward with","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"specific facts establishing the presence of a genuine factual dispute for trial.” Id. at","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"ROACH V. WELLS FARGO BANK, NAT’L ASS’N","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"Opinion of the Court","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"- 8 -","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"579, 573 S.E.2d at 124 (citing Lowe v. Bradford, 305 N.C. 366, 369–70, 289 S.E.2d","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"363, 366 (1982)).","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"“When considering a motion for summary judgment, the trial judge must view","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"the presented evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Dalton v.","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"Camp, 353 N.C. 647, 651, 548 S.E.2d 704, 707 (2001) (citation omitted). At the","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"summary judgment stage, a trial court’s duty “is strictly confined to determining","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"whether genuine issues of material fact exist and does not extend to resolving such","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"issues.” Pennington, 356 N.C. at 579, 573 S.E.2d at 124; see also Forbis v. Neal, 361","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"N.C. 519, 524, 649 S.E.2d 382, 385 (2007) (“The trial court may not resolve issues of","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"fact and must deny the motion if there is a genuine issue as to any material fact.”).","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"B. Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"The purpose of the Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act is to “provide a","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"civil means to maintain ethical standards of dealings between persons engaged in","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"business and the consuming public in this State, and it applies to dealings between","paragraph_id":"para_185"},{"text":"buyers and sellers at all levels of commerce.” Bhatti v. Buckland, 328 N.C. 240, 245,","paragraph_id":"para_186"},{"text":"400 S.E.2d 440, 443–44 (1991) (cleaned up); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 (2023). To","paragraph_id":"para_187"},{"text":"demonstrate a violation of section 75-1.1, a plaintiff must prove: “(1) an unfair or","paragraph_id":"para_188"},{"text":"deceptive act or practice, or an unfair method of competition, (2) in or affecting","paragraph_id":"para_189"},{"text":"commerce, (3) which proximately caused actual injury to the plaintiff or to his","paragraph_id":"para_190"},{"text":"business.” Furr v. Fonville Morisey Realty, Inc., 130 N.C. App. 541, 551, 503 S.E.2d","paragraph_id":"para_191"},{"text":"401, 408 (1998) (citation omitted).","paragraph_id":"para_192"},{"text":"ROACH V. WELLS FARGO BANK, NAT’L ASS’N","paragraph_id":"para_193"},{"text":"Opinion of the Court","paragraph_id":"para_194"},{"text":"- 9 -","paragraph_id":"para_195"},{"text":"“[A]ctions for unfair or deceptive trade practices are distinct from actions for","paragraph_id":"para_196"},{"text":"breach of contract[;] a mere breach of contract, even if intentional, is not sufficiently","paragraph_id":"para_197"},{"text":"unfair or deceptive to sustain an action under [section 75-1.1].” Branch Banking &","paragraph_id":"para_198"},{"text":"Tr. Co. v. Thompson, 107 N.C. App. 53, 62, 418 S.E.2d 694, 700 (1992). As a result,","paragraph_id":"para_199"},{"text":"after establishing a breach, a plaintiff must make a showing of “substantial","paragraph_id":"para_200"},{"text":"aggravating circumstances that attend the breach in order to recover under the Act.”","paragraph_id":"para_201"},{"text":"Mitchell v. Linville, 148 N.C. App. 71, 75, 557 S.E.2d 620, 623–24 (2001) (cleaned up);","paragraph_id":"para_202"},{"text":"Norman Owen Trucking, Inc. v. Morkoski, 131 N.C. App. 168, 177, 506 S.E.2d 267,","paragraph_id":"para_203"},{"text":"273 (1998) (“Simple breach of contract . . . do[es] not qualify as [an] unfair or deceptive","paragraph_id":"para_204"},{"text":"act[], but rather must be characterized by some type of egregious or aggravating","paragraph_id":"para_205"},{"text":"circumstances before the statute applies.”). “A violation of Chapter 75 is unlikely to","paragraph_id":"para_206"},{"text":"occur during the course of contractual performance, as these types of claims are best","paragraph_id":"para_207"},{"text":"resolved by simply determining whether the parties properly fulfilled their","paragraph_id":"para_208"},{"text":"contractual duties.” Mitchell, 148 N.C. App. at 75, 557 S.E.2d at 624.","paragraph_id":"para_209"},{"text":"Nevertheless, “unfairness or ‘deception either in the formation of the contract","paragraph_id":"para_210"},{"text":"or in the circumstances of its breach’ may establish the existence of substantial","paragraph_id":"para_211"},{"text":"aggravating circumstances sufficient to support an unfair and deceptive trade","paragraph_id":"para_212"},{"text":"practices claim.” SciGrip, Inc. v. Osae, 373 N.C. 409, 426, 838 S.E.2d 334, 347 (2020)","paragraph_id":"para_213"},{"text":"(quoting Bartolomeo v. S.B. Thomas, Inc., 889 F.2d 530, 535 (4th Cir. 1989)). Several","paragraph_id":"para_214"},{"text":"past cases addressing substantial aggravating circumstances","paragraph_id":"para_215"},{"text":"have generally involved forms of forgery or deception. See","paragraph_id":"para_216"},{"text":"ROACH V. WELLS FARGO BANK, NAT’L ASS’N","paragraph_id":"para_217"},{"text":"Opinion of the Court","paragraph_id":"para_218"},{"text":"- 10 -","paragraph_id":"para_219"},{"text":"Garlock v. Henson, 112 N.C. App. 243, 246, 435 S.E.2d 114,","paragraph_id":"para_220"},{"text":"115 (1993) (finding substantial aggravating circumstances","paragraph_id":"para_221"},{"text":"where the evidence showed “defendant repeatedly denied","paragraph_id":"para_222"},{"text":"the sale of the bulldozer when he knew it had been sold”","paragraph_id":"para_223"},{"text":"and “defendant forged a bill of sale in an attempt to","paragraph_id":"para_224"},{"text":"extinguish plaintiff’s ownership interest in the bulldozer”);","paragraph_id":"para_225"},{"text":"see also Talbert v. Mauney, 80 N.C. App. 477, 480–81, 343","paragraph_id":"para_226"},{"text":"S.E.2d 5, 8 (1986) (holding “plaintiffs’ allegations of","paragraph_id":"para_227"},{"text":"wrongful and intentional harm to their credit rating and","paragraph_id":"para_228"},{"text":"business prospects” along with allegations defendant told","paragraph_id":"para_229"},{"text":"a potential investor “plaintiffs’ credit documents were","paragraph_id":"para_230"},{"text":"‘probably forged’ ” was sufficient to state a claim under the","paragraph_id":"para_231"},{"text":"Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act); Walker v.","paragraph_id":"para_232"},{"text":"Sloan, 137 N.C. App. 387, 395–96, 529 S.E.2d 236, 243","paragraph_id":"para_233"},{"text":"(2000) (holding plaintiffs’ allegations were sufficient to","paragraph_id":"para_234"},{"text":"support a claim where defendant “attempted to break up","paragraph_id":"para_235"},{"text":"the employee group . . . by attempting to bribe the portfolio","paragraph_id":"para_236"},{"text":"managers into withdrawing from the group . . .; refus[ed]","paragraph_id":"para_237"},{"text":"to participate [in negotiations] in good faith . . .; and . . .","paragraph_id":"para_238"},{"text":"terminat[ed] the plaintiffs [from employment]”).","paragraph_id":"para_239"},{"text":"Chapel H.O.M. Assocs., LLC v. RME Mgmt., LLC, 256 N.C. App. 625, 629, 808 S.E.2d","paragraph_id":"para_240"},{"text":"576, 579–80 (2017).","paragraph_id":"para_241"},{"text":"Under section 75-1.1, the first question is whether the defendant “ ‘committed","paragraph_id":"para_242"},{"text":"the alleged acts, and then it is a question of law for the court as to whether these","paragraph_id":"para_243"},{"text":"proven facts constitute an unfair or deceptive trade practice.’ ” Richardson v. Bank","paragraph_id":"para_244"},{"text":"of America, N.A., 182 N.C. App. 531, 540, 643 S.E.2d 410, 416 (2007) (quoting United","paragraph_id":"para_245"},{"text":"Lab., Inc. v. Kuykendall, 322 N.C. 643, 664, 370 S.E.2d 375, 389 (1988)).","paragraph_id":"para_246"},{"text":"1. Failure to Postpone Foreclosure Sale","paragraph_id":"para_247"},{"text":"The sole contention in Plaintiffs’ complaint is that Defendant falsely and","paragraph_id":"para_248"},{"text":"deceptively misrepresented the steps necessary to delay the foreclosure sale.","paragraph_id":"para_249"},{"text":"ROACH V. WELLS FARGO BANK, NAT’L ASS’N","paragraph_id":"para_250"},{"text":"Opinion of the Court","paragraph_id":"para_251"},{"text":"- 11 -","paragraph_id":"para_252"},{"text":"Specifically, Plaintiffs allege Defendant stated that “the estimated payoff would be","paragraph_id":"para_253"},{"text":"$105,335.86 and in order to request sale postponement, Plaintiffs needed to [fax]","paragraph_id":"para_254"},{"text":"proof of funds and a gift letter.” In their amended response to interrogatories,","paragraph_id":"para_255"},{"text":"Plaintiffs allege Defendant advised Plaintiffs that “upon the submission of ‘the","paragraph_id":"para_256"},{"text":"required documentation,’ the foreclosure sale would not be conducted while the","paragraph_id":"para_257"},{"text":"documents were being reviewed . . . .”","paragraph_id":"para_258"},{"text":"Here, Defendant did not fraudulently conceal its intent or unfairly exercise its","paragraph_id":"para_259"},{"text":"right to foreclose. Indeed, Plaintiffs admit they received formal notice of the 19","paragraph_id":"para_260"},{"text":"January 2016 foreclosure sale on 17 December 2015. After Plaintiffs defaulted,","paragraph_id":"para_261"},{"text":"Defendant attempted to work with Plaintiffs to address their outstanding obligations","paragraph_id":"para_262"},{"text":"and forestall the foreclosure sale, despite being under no legal or contractual","paragraph_id":"para_263"},{"text":"obligation to do so. Plaintiffs’ eleventh-hour attempts through counsel—the day","paragraph_id":"para_264"},{"text":"before and under an hour before the sale—to ostensibly comply with Defendant’s","paragraph_id":"para_265"},{"text":"accommodation criteria do not create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether","paragraph_id":"para_266"},{"text":"Defendant acted unfairly or deceptively by failing to postpone the sale. Considering","paragraph_id":"para_267"},{"text":"the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs failed to forecast","paragraph_id":"para_268"},{"text":"evidence which rises to the level of substantial aggravating circumstances.","paragraph_id":"para_269"},{"text":"2. Reinstatement","paragraph_id":"para_270"},{"text":"In a prehearing deposition, Plaintiffs raised an additional theory which the","paragraph_id":"para_271"},{"text":"trial court addressed in its summary judgment order. The trial court held Defendant","paragraph_id":"para_272"},{"text":"did not commit an unfair or deceptive act by refusing to allow Plaintiffs to reinstate","paragraph_id":"para_273"},{"text":"ROACH V. WELLS FARGO BANK, NAT’L ASS’N","paragraph_id":"para_274"},{"text":"Opinion of the Court","paragraph_id":"para_275"},{"text":"- 12 -","paragraph_id":"para_276"},{"text":"their loan during the upset bid period because (1) paragraph 16 of the Deed of Trust","paragraph_id":"para_277"},{"text":"did not provide Plaintiffs a right to reinstate their loan because the section applied to","paragraph_id":"para_278"},{"text":"“proceedings begun by Lender” and here, the foreclosure proceedings were initiated","paragraph_id":"para_279"},{"text":"by the substitute trustee; and (2) even if paragraph 16 of the Deed of Trust provided","paragraph_id":"para_280"},{"text":"such right, Defendant did not commit an unfair or deceptive act when it refused to","paragraph_id":"para_281"},{"text":"allow Plaintiffs to reinstate the loan.","paragraph_id":"para_282"},{"text":"A foreclosure is a “legal proceeding to terminate a mortgagor’s interest in","paragraph_id":"para_283"},{"text":"property, instituted by the lender (the mortgagee) either to gain title or to force a sale","paragraph_id":"para_284"},{"text":"in order to satisfy the unpaid debt secured by the property.” S. Shores Realty Servs.,","paragraph_id":"para_285"},{"text":"Inc. v. Miller, 251 N.C. App. 571, 581, 796 S.E.2d 340, 349 (2017) (citation and","paragraph_id":"para_286"},{"text":"internal quotation marks omitted). In its answer, Defendant admitted that “it caused","paragraph_id":"para_287"},{"text":"Mecklenburg County Special Proceed[ing] [ ] to be commenced to foreclose [upon] the","paragraph_id":"para_288"},{"text":"deed of trust securing Plaintiffs’ obligations to it.” In the light most favorable to","paragraph_id":"para_289"},{"text":"Plaintiffs, we conclude the foreclosure proceedings were initiated by Defendant and","paragraph_id":"para_290"},{"text":"proceed to the trial court’s alternative holding.","paragraph_id":"para_291"},{"text":"A foreclosure proceeding may be initiated by “(1) foreclosure by judicial sale . .","paragraph_id":"para_292"},{"text":". or, (2) if expressly provided within the deed of trust or mortgage, by power of sale","paragraph_id":"para_293"},{"text":"under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 45–21.1 et seq.” Banks v. Hunter, 251 N.C. App. 528, 534,","paragraph_id":"para_294"},{"text":"796 S.E.2d 361, 367 (2017) (citation omitted). As here, “power of sale is a contractual","paragraph_id":"para_295"},{"text":"provision in a deed of trust conferring upon the trustee the power to sell real property","paragraph_id":"para_296"},{"text":"pledged as collateral for a loan in the event of default.” In re Simmons, 291 N.C. App.","paragraph_id":"para_297"},{"text":"ROACH V. WELLS FARGO BANK, NAT’L ASS’N","paragraph_id":"para_298"},{"text":"Opinion of the Court","paragraph_id":"para_299"},{"text":"- 13 -","paragraph_id":"para_300"},{"text":"30, 32, 893 S.E.2d 271, 273 (2023) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).","paragraph_id":"para_301"},{"text":"Moreover, “the right to foreclose by power of sale is contractual in nature and permits","paragraph_id":"para_302"},{"text":"parties to expeditiously resolve mortgage defaults through a non-judicial proceeding","paragraph_id":"para_303"},{"text":"if authorized in the parties’ mortgage or deed of trust.” Id. at 32, 893 S.E.2d at 273","paragraph_id":"para_304"},{"text":"(cleaned up).","paragraph_id":"para_305"},{"text":"Here, the Deed of Trust provides, in relevant part, “[Plaintiffs] [ ] hereby grant","paragraph_id":"para_306"},{"text":"and convey to Trustee in trust with power of sale” to the Property. The Property was","paragraph_id":"para_307"},{"text":"sold at foreclosure by power of sale, i.e., a non-judicial foreclosure sale. Thus,","paragraph_id":"para_308"},{"text":"Defendant’s actions surrounding the reinstatement of Plaintiffs’ mortgage is a","paragraph_id":"para_309"},{"text":"contractual issue, as “[n]on-judicial foreclosure by power of sale arises under contract","paragraph_id":"para_310"},{"text":"and is not a judicial proceeding.” See In re Lucks, 369 N.C. 222, 225, 794 S.E.2d 501,","paragraph_id":"para_311"},{"text":"504 (2016).","paragraph_id":"para_312"},{"text":"Even assuming the Deed of Trust afforded Plaintiffs the right to reinstate,","paragraph_id":"para_313"},{"text":"because foreclosure by “power of sale is a contractual provision in a deed of trust,”","paragraph_id":"para_314"},{"text":"Plaintiffs’ claim would sound in breach of contract rather than a claim for unfair or","paragraph_id":"para_315"},{"text":"deceptive trade practices. See Simmons, 291 N.C. App. at 32, 893 S.E.2d at 273","paragraph_id":"para_316"},{"text":"(citation omitted). Similar to our conclusion above, the pleadings and evidence before","paragraph_id":"para_317"},{"text":"the trial court failed to forecast evidence of substantial aggravating circumstances","paragraph_id":"para_318"},{"text":"attendant to a breach. At most, these facts could possibly support a claim for breach","paragraph_id":"para_319"},{"text":"ROACH V. WELLS FARGO BANK, NAT’L ASS’N","paragraph_id":"para_320"},{"text":"Opinion of the Court","paragraph_id":"para_321"},{"text":"- 14 -","paragraph_id":"para_322"},{"text":"of contract—a cause of action not before the trial court. Accordingly, the trial court","paragraph_id":"para_323"},{"text":"did not err by granting summary judgment for Defendant.2","paragraph_id":"para_324"},{"text":"V. Conclusion","paragraph_id":"para_325"},{"text":"As the trial court observed during the hearing, the competing interests in this","paragraph_id":"para_326"},{"text":"case are Plaintiffs’ contentions that Defendant’s actions were not “right” in a moral","paragraph_id":"para_327"},{"text":"sense, contrasted against Defendant’s legal and contractual rights to foreclose. We","paragraph_id":"para_328"},{"text":"hold the trial court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant","paragraph_id":"para_329"},{"text":"where no genuine issue of material fact remained as to Plaintiffs’ unfair and deceptive","paragraph_id":"para_330"},{"text":"trade practices claim. If the Deed of Trust provided Plaintiffs a right to reinstate the","paragraph_id":"para_331"},{"text":"loan during the upset bid period, Plaintiffs’ cause of action lies in breach of contract,","paragraph_id":"para_332"},{"text":"a claim not before us, rather than unfair and deceptive trade practices. We therefore","paragraph_id":"para_333"},{"text":"affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for Defendant.","paragraph_id":"para_334"},{"text":"AFFIRMED.","paragraph_id":"para_335"},{"text":"Judges ZACHARY and WOOD concur.","paragraph_id":"para_336"},{"text":"2 We do not reach Plaintiffs’ argument concerning the sufficiency of the “gift letter.” This question of","paragraph_id":"para_337"},{"text":"fact is not material in light of the foregoing analysis. See Coastal Plains Utils, Inc. v. New Hanover","paragraph_id":"para_338"},{"text":"Cnty., 166 N.C. App. 333, 340, 601 S.E.2d 915, 920 (2004).","paragraph_id":"para_339"}],"word_count":3584,"cites":["889 F.2d 530"],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"20b02c726186333194252eeafc2fc50d5930a39c075e10e1bb00852e1a17fac2","source_url":"https://appellate.nccourts.org/opinions/?c=2&pdf=43753","fetched_at":"2026-10-17T17:51:51.15+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ncctapp-24-177-2025-12-03","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ncctapp-24-177-2025-12-03","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ncctapp-24-177-2025-12-03","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ncctapp-24-177-2025-12-03","verification":{"stored_sha256":"20b02c726186333194252eeafc2fc50d5930a39c075e10e1bb00852e1a17fac2","recomputed_sha256":"20b02c726186333194252eeafc2fc50d5930a39c075e10e1bb00852e1a17fac2","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-10-17T22:32:28.228Z"}},"hash":"sha256:02ea3fd0abbd356b882171b8e448af3526e74cf79acdb0e5f95d3de723d45e64","version":"legal-2026-10-17","expires":"2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-17+legal-2026-10-17+2026-10-17T17:42:33","content_hash":"sha256:02ea3fd0abbd356b882171b8e448af3526e74cf79acdb0e5f95d3de723d45e64","revalidate_after":"2026-10-17T23:32:28.446Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ncctapp-24-177-2025-12-03","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ncctapp-24-177-2025-12-03"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ncctapp-24-177-2025-12-03"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ncctapp-24-177-2025-12-03"},{"rel":"obligations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/us/praxis/ncctapp-24-177-2025-12-03","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-3ed8d6f0ced3bad38ff7ed522cc08950","response_hash":"sha256:02ea3fd0abbd356b882171b8e448af3526e74cf79acdb0e5f95d3de723d45e64"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-03T23:21:22.602Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us%3Ancctapp-24-177-2025-12-03&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":14790}}