FIRM NEWS

First Degree Murder Charge Defended

The criminal litigation defense team of the Charlotte, North Carolina law firm of Andresen & Arronte successfully defended a first degree murder charge in Superior Court, Mecklenburg County, recently. The charges stemmed from an incident wherein the defendant and a friend returned to the defendant’s home at about 1:15AM after celebrating the friend’s birthday. A scuffle ensured and the friend grabbed the defendant’s neck and began chocking him. According to the defendant, he was able to push the friend-turned-assailant away. When the friend came back at him, the defendant reached for his hand-gun, shot and killed the attacker. The bullet pierced the heart.

The defendant claimed self-defense; however, the State put on evidence that the body had actually been shot an hour before the 911 call was made.

The defendant (who possessed a criminal record) testified, as did a number of witnesses on his behalf. The jury did not accept his defense of self-defense, but rejected both first and second degree murder charges, finding the defendant guilty of voluntary manslaughter.

“It was the most complex self-defense case I have ever presided over”, said the presiding Superior Court Judge.

First degree murder requires life without parole; second degree would have carried a sentence of 20 plus years. “Given those possible outcomes, a conviction for voluntary manslaughter is a real victory”, explained Ken Andresen, the firm’s lead defense lawyer.

Back to Firm News

Deferred Prosecution Violation Charges Dismissed

The criminal defense lawyers at Andresen & Arronte successfully defended charges that their client had violated the terms of his deferred prosecution.

After acknowledging wrongdoing over a year ago, the defendant was placed on deferred prosecution. At that time he lived in South Carolina and worked in North Carolina. When the client’s mother became ill, he moved in with her in Charlotte, N.C. but continued to travel to South Carolina in efforts to reconcile with his wife and to visit with his child.

The probation officer claimed that he violated the terms of deferred prosecution because he was not living with his mother, but actually was living with his wife in South Carolina. When interviewed by the probation officer, the defendant’s mother said that the defendant did not live with her.

However, the firm produced evidence that his mother suffered from dementia, that mail was delivered to the mother’s address and that the defendant did not willfully violate the travel restrictions, but simply thought that because he had been permitted to go from South Carolina to North Carolina, he would be able to travel in the reverse without special permission.

All charges were dismissed and the defendant was allowed to continue with the deferred prosecution program. Upon completion, the underlying charges will be dismissed as well.

Back to Firm News

Judgment Obtained Against Owner of Limited Liability Company

A group of investors from North Carolina, Illinois, and Kentucky have successfully obtained a $3.2 Million judgment against the principal member of a North Carolina limited liability company.  The company borrowed money from the investors with the intent to use those funds to purchase an Ohio company that owned and franchised approximately 74 casual dining restaurants across the United States and England.  Promissory notes were issued to the investors; however, payments on the promissory notes were never made. 

The investors retained Andresen & Arronte, PLLC, a litigation law firm based in Charlotte, North Carolina, to bring an action against the company and the owner of the company.  The investors maintained various claims for relief against the defendants, including breach of contract, fraud, and unfair and deceptive trade practices.  The investors also sought to pierce the corporate veil and hold the principal member liable for the debts owed to them by the company.  A judgment exceeding $3.2 Million was first obtained against the company.  Soon thereafter, on Summary Judgment, the litigation lawyers at Andresen & Arronte convincingly showed the Court that the principal member should not be allowed to hide behind the limited liability protection normally afforded to persons who manage or own a business.  The Court agreed that there was no issue of material fact and that the investors were entitled to judgment. 

Back to Firm News

CPA Practice Buyout Litigation Successful

The business litigation team at Andresen & Arronte successfully completed a week-long jury trial recently in a CPA practice buy-out that went sideways.

The firm’s client brought the suit alleging that it received only 60% of the client data base after the purchase, but paid for all of it. The plaintiff sought actual compensatory damages for the lost revenue projected out over three years discounted by the practices average over-head expenses. The plaintiff also sought treble damages and attorney’s fees.

As part of the defense the defendant brought four counter-claims—all of which were dismissed at the close of the defendant’s evidence. Faced with the possibility of a large verdict that might be trebled, the defendant and the plaintiff were able to reach a settlement suitable to the plaintiff.

Throughout, the law firm received high compliments from the courtroom personnel. “I have never received such a well organized listing and compilation of exhibits”, commented the courtroom clerk. After trial, the firm received a letter from the client extolling its “professionalism” and its “contentiousness”.  “[We should have retained] your services from day one”, wrote the client. “You are the best!”

Back to Firm News

Motion to Supress Granted in Provisional DWI Case

An Andresen & Arronte client’s Driving After Consuming charge was dismissed by the court recently after a Motion to Suppress was granted by the judge who leads Mecklenburg County in DWI convictions.  Andresen & Arronte attorney Christina Butler conducted the hearing on the motion, which lasted only ten minutes before the judge rendered a decision granting her motion.  The charge of Driving After Consuming involves operation of a motor vehicle by someone under the age of 21 while having any concentration of an impairing substance still in his or her system. 

The firm’s client was pulled over for having a broken tail light, which was slightly cracked following an unrelated collision.  After giving a positive reading on the portable breath test device and emitting an odor of alcohol, she was arrested and charged with Driving After Consuming. The Motion to Suppress was granted on the grounds that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion sufficient to warrant a traffic stop, which rendered the stop unconstitutional.  As a result, no evidence from the point of the stop onward was admissible in court.   “This is a great outcome,” defense attorney Christina Butler said.   “The judge agreed that a traffic stop was conducted when there was no unlawful driving, which is plainly a violation of the young lady’s constitutional rights.”   

Back to Firm News

Plaintiff Collects Money Damages from Appraisers’ Insurance Carrier

The firm of Andresen & Arronte successfully negotiated the payment of money damages to its client, a lender, by the insurance carrier for two home appraisers.  As alleged in the civil suit filed by Andresen & Arronte on behalf of its client, the appraisers’ negligence resulted in an inflated appraisal, with the result that the lender approved a loan to the homeowner for more than the true value of the home.  The borrower defaulted on the loan, and, as a result, the lender suffered damages.

After discovery, including depositions conducted by Andresen & Arronte, it became clear that the estimate of the value of the home stated in the appraisal report was higher than the true value, and at the end of the court mandated mediation session the insurance carrier for the appraisers agreed to the payment of money damages.

Back to Firm News

No Personal Liability for General Contractor

Andresen & Arronte’s litigation lawyers successfully defended the sole member of a limited liability company from personal liability in an action brought by a subcontractor.

In the action, the subcontractor alleged that it was owed money for services and materials furnished to a job site wherein Andresen & Arronte’s client was the general contractor.  The subcontractor sought to hold both the company, and well as its owner, liable for the funds owed. 

At the hearing, Julian Arronte, a business litigation lawyer at Andresen & Arronte, successfully convinced the Court that a judgment would not be proper against the owner of the company and that the subcontractor’s sole remedy was a judgment against the limited liability company. 

Back to Firm News

Business Litigation Complaint Decimated

The business litigation lawyers at Andresen & Arronte have successfully decimated a business complaint filed in connection with the purchase of a RE/MAX real estate franchise in the Lake Norman area of Charlotte.

The buyer/plaintiff alleged that she had been fraudulently induced into making the purchase of a one-half interest in the company. She further alleged claims for unfair and deceptive trade practices, punitive damages, breaches of contract, conspiracy, declaratory judgment, breaches of fiduciary duty and judicial dissolution.

The defendants brought a number of counterclaims also alleging breach of contract, defamation and punitive damages.

The defendants first succeeded on their motion under Rule 12(b)(6) of the civil rules in obtaining a ruling throwing out the civil conspiracy, unfair and deception trade practices and breach of fiduciary duty claims on the basis that the pleading itself failed to properly allege those claims. Next, after the discovery period, the defendants succeeded in obtaining an Order on their motion for summary judgment in tossing out the fraudulent inducement, punitive damages and declaratory judgment claims. 

Additionally, two of the three individual defendants have also been dismissed from the suit.

The case is set for trial in mid-August on the plaintiff’s contract claims. All of the defendant’s claims remain in for trial.

“It’s a fabulous result for our clients.” Julian Arronte said after the hearing. “It now means that the relative position of the parties has changed dramatically.”

Back to Firm News

Business Partners Dismissed From Action Seeking Personal Liability

Two business partners of a North Carolina limited liability company have been dismissed from a workman’s compensation action.  The action was filed by a former employee who, while employed, had been injured while performing his duties in the course of his employment.  The employee allegedly sustained permanent back injuries.  The two partners retained the law firm of Andresen & Arronte when their company’s workman’s compensation insurance carrier sought to bring them into the action in their individual capacity.  The carrier was attempting to hold the partners individually liable for the employee’s damages under a piercing of the corporate veil theory. 

Attorney Julian M. Arronte of Andresen & Arronte represented the individuals at the hearing before the North Carolina Industrial Commission and moved to dismiss the partners at the conclusion of the hearing contending that there was insufficient evidence presented by either the Plaintiff-Employee or the insurance carrier to sustain the claim to pierce the corporate veil.  The motion was granted and the business partners were dismissed from the action thus thwarting the possibility of a personal judgment being entered against them. 

Back to Firm News

Andresen & Arronte Attorney Weds Fellow Defense Counsel

The firm of Andresen & Arronte is pleased to announce the marriage of attorney Christina A. Bilzi of Andresen & Arronte to Micheal E. Butler.  The wedding took place seaside in Wrightsville Beach, NC on June 21, 2008.  The Andresen & Arronte attorneys and staff were all present to witness the union. 

Mr. & Mrs. Butler met while attending N.C. State University and UNC-Chapel Hill, respectively, and both attended Wake Forest University School of Law.  Mr. Butler is also a practicing criminal defense attorney in Charlotte, NC.  The Butlers have made their home in Charlotte, NC where Mrs. Butler will continue practicing criminal defense with Andresen & Arronte.  Mrs. Butler will take on the name of Christina Bilzi Butler.  

Back to Firm News

Plaintiff Collects Money from Residential Loan Broker

The firm of Andresen & Arronte successfully secured a default judgment against a broker who packaged a residential loan application and submitted it to the plaintiff lender, who suffered damages as a result of non-payment by the borrower.

After the borrower defaulted on the loan, the lender sought to have the loan broker purchase the loan, as provided in the contract between these two parties.  When the loan broker failed and refused to do so, Andresen & Arronte filed a civil suit to recover the damages suffered by the lender.

When the defendant loan broker failed to answer the complaint, Andresen & Arronte secured a default judgment and instituted collection efforts which resulted in a levy against the defendant’s bank account, and recovery of money for the plaintiff.  Additional collection efforts resulted in a written agreement with the defendant for additional payments to the plaintiff.

Back to Firm News

DWI Client Acquitted

Recently a jury acquitted the firm’s client of a DWI charge after only 45 minutes of deliberation. The client was arrested at 1:30 AM after a police officer approached his vehicle. The Vietnamese client, who spoke only broken English, had fallen asleep at the wheel at a stop light. The motor was running. The police made him perform several field sobriety tests and administered the alcosensor. The results of that test did not come into evidence. The client admitted to drinking 3 beers earlier in the evening. He also testified that he had worked all day, had driven to Columbia, SC to bring his girlfriend food and had gone to a party after returning to Charlotte. The FST and the arrest were video taped and shown to the jury. “The video plainly showed a man who was trying his best to follow the officer’s directions,” said defense attorney Kenneth Andresen. “He displayed no unsteadiness. His testimony was credible. Together they must have created reasonable doubt for the jury.”

Back to Firm News

Plaintiff Barred from Re-Filing in Business Litigation Case

The firm of Andresen & Arronte successfully warded off an attempt by a plaintiff to re-file her complaint, in which she sought substantial damages resulting from injuries she alleged were negligently inflicted upon her by a private police company.

The plaintiff had left a popular night club at about 2am in the morning in downtown Charlotte, NC but loitered in the club’s parking lot. She was asked to leave, but did not do so. The private police company had been hired by management to insure patrons’ safety by preventing loitering, which had been the cause of increased prostitution and drug sales, it said.

Plaintiff refused to leave and began an altercation with a private officer. She suffered bruises and cuts as she was restrained and handcuffed.

Her initial complaint alleged negligence against the private security firm as well as the owners of the night club. However, midway through the litigation she took a voluntary dismissal of her complaint without prejudice. Just short of a year later she sought to re-file her lawsuit. The defendants filed motions to dismiss on the basis that she had not paid them the costs of the first action, as required by law. A superior court judge ordered that the plaintiff must make payment of the costs within 30 days or be barred from re-filing.

The plaintiff, through new counsel, sought to make payment of the costs, but did so after the expiration of the 30-day period. In an Order entered June 26, 2008 Judge Albert Diaz held that the plaintiff had not complied with the earlier Order and therefore was now barred from re-filing.

Back to Firm News

$3 Million Judgment Awarded In an Investment Action

Andresen & Arronte has successfully obtained a judgment in excess of $3 Million for its clients in an action for unpaid promissory notes.  The firm represented a group of investors who collectively invested $600,000.00 with a North Carolina limited liability company intending to purchase an Ohio company that owned and franchised approximately 74 casual dining restaurants across the United States and England.  Promissory notes were issued to the investors; however, payments on the promissory notes were never made. 

The investors retained the law firm of Andresen & Arronte to file a law suit against the limited liability company as well as its owner for, amongst other allegations, breaching its contract with the investors.  The case was principally handled by attorney Julian M. Arronte who obtained the judgment against the corporate defendant.  The action is still pending against the owner of the limited liability company in an effort to pierce the corporate veil to hold the owner personally liable for the damages sustained by the plaintiff investors.

Back to Firm News