CHINA CONSTR. AM. OF S.C., INC. v. SYCAMORE AT CHRISTENBURY, LLC, 2024 NCBC 38

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
CABARRUS COUNTY
IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
24 CVS 526
CHINA CONSTRUCTION
AMERICA OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
SYCAMORE AT CHRISTENBURY,
LLC and U.S. SPECIALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants.
ORDER AND OPINION
ON DEFENDANT U.S.
SPECIALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY’S MOTION TO DISMISS
Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP, by R. Jason Herndon, Brian D.
Darer, Daniel J. Knight, and Ethan A. Johnson; and Bruner, Powell,
Wall & Mullins, LLC, by Henry P. Wall and Benjamin C. Bruner, for
Plaintiff China Construction America of South Carolina, LLC.*
Anderson Jones, PLLC, by J. Anthony Penry and Felicia M. Haigh, and
Smith Currie Oles LLP, by Eugene F. Rash, for Defendants Sycamore at
Christenbury, LLC and U.S. Specialty Insurance Company.
Conrad, Judge.
1. 	This action arises from the construction of an apartment complex in
Concord, North Carolina. 	China Construction America of South Carolina, Inc. (the
general contractor) alleges that it completed the project last year but that Sycamore
at Christenbury, LLC (the property owner) has not paid all that is due under their
contracts. 	The complaint includes claims against Sycamore for breach of contract,
quantum meruit, and negligent misrepresentation. It also includes a claim either to
* Clifton W. Homesley, Consuela Simmons, and Cameron Bray of Homesley & Wingo Law
Group, PLLC represented the plaintiff at the time the motion to dismiss was filed but have
since been granted leave to withdraw.
China Constr. Am. of S.C., Inc. v. Sycamore at Christenbury, LLC, 2024 NCBC 38.

enforce a mechanic’s lien against Sycamore’s property or to compel payment on a bond
provided by U.S. Specialty Insurance Company to discharge the lien. 	(See Compl.
¶¶ 9, 31, 40, 44, 47, 68, ECF No. 3.)
2. 	U.S. Specialty has moved to dismiss the only claim against it. (See ECF No.
16.) 	Because China Construction has not filed an opposition brief, “the motion will
be considered and decided as an uncontested motion.” BCR 7.6. The Court elects to
rule without a hearing. See BCR 7.4.
3. 	The issue is this: is China Construction’s claim demanding payment on the
lien discharge bond ripe? 	U.S. Specialty argues that it isn’t ripe, and the Court
agrees. A lien discharge bond under N.C.G.S. § 44A-16(6) “simply takes the place of
the land.” 	George v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 330 N.C. 755, 761 (1992).
“Because the bond acts as a substitute for the land, logic dictates that the lien
claimant’s right to make demand upon the bond accrues at the same time that he
would have been able to enforce the lien against the land: at final judgment in his
favor.” Id. China Construction hasn’t obtained a final judgment against Sycamore;
thus, its right to demand payment on the bond hasn’t accrued yet. (See Compl. ¶ 42
(alleging that U.S. Specialty is a party only “for the purpose of insuring that any
ultimate judgment resulting from this action will mandate” payment on the bond if
China Construction “is not satisfied directly by . . . Sycamore”).)
4. 	Accordingly, the Court GRANTS U.S. Specialty’s motion and DISMISSES
China Construction’s claim for payment on the lien discharge bond without prejudice.

SO ORDERED, this the 10th day of June, 2024.
/s/ Adam M. Conrad
Adam M. Conrad
Special Superior Court Judge
for Complex Business Cases