All
opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official
publication in the North Carolina Reports and North Carolina Court of Appeals
Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an
opinion and the print version appearing in the North Carolina Reports and North
Carolina Court of Appeals Reports, the latest print version is to be considered
authoritative.
NO. COA07-1519
NORTH CAROLINA
COURT OF APPEALS
Filed: 17 June 2008
MARIE A. CROSS and
SAMUEL A. SCUDDER,
Plaintiffs,
v. Wake County
No.
07 CVS 904
CAPITAL TRANSACTION GROUP, INC.,
d/b/a CAPTRAN, and WAYNE WALKER,
Defendants.
Appeal by Plaintiffs from judgment entered 4 September 2007
by Judge R. Allen Baddour, Jr., in Wake County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 20 May 2008.
Scudder
& Hedrick, PLLC, by Samuel A. Scudder and April D. Seguin, for
Plaintiff-Appellants.
Wayne
C. Walker, Pro Se, for Defendant-Appellee Wayne C. Walker.
ARROWOOD, Judge.
Plaintiffs appeal an order declaring Defendant Wayne Walker
to be the holder of a valid lien on $5,625.00 awarded to Plaintiff Cross in a
settlement of her workers’ compensation claim, and directing Plaintiff Scudder
to disburse these funds to Walker. We
reverse.
Plaintiffs are workers’ compensation claimant, Marie Cross,
and her attorney, Samuel Scudder.
Defendants are Capital Transaction Group, Inc., d/b/a CapTran (CapTran),
and Wayne Walker. CapTran “is a Nevada
corporation engaged in the business of investing capital in personal injury
cases.” Defendant (Wayne Walker) is an
assignee of CapTran’s interest in the instruments at issue in this case.
In February 2002 Cross suffered a workplace injury for which
she filed a workers’ compensation claim.
On 22 November 2002 Cross and CapTran executed a document titled
“Transfer and Assignment of Proceeds and Security Agreement.” Under the terms of this agreement, CapTran
agreed to “advance $1500.00” to Plaintiff in return for “a portion of
[Plaintiff’s] future settlement and/or litigation proceeds” from her workers’
compensation claim. The agreement,
which obligated Plaintiff to repay CapTran the principal amount of $1500.00 and
an additional “investment fee” of $1875.00, purported to grant CapTran a
“security interest in the Proceeds of the Litigation for the original
investment of $1500.00 plus [the investment fee amount].” The agreement also stated that if Plaintiff
failed to obtain workers’ compensation benefits, she would be excused from
repaying CapTran.
On 23 December 2002 Cross and CapTran signed another
agreement, identical to the first except for the dollar amounts involved. Pursuant to the second agreement, CapTran
advanced Plaintiff another $1000.00, and obtained a “security interest” in that
amount plus an additional $1250.00, again contingent on Plaintiff’s receiving
workers’ compensation benefits. Under
the terms of these contracts, Plaintiff then owed CapTran $2500.00, plus
“investment fees” of $3125.00, for a total of $5625.00 of her workers’
compensation proceeds.
In February 2006 Cross settled her workers’ compensation
claim. On 17 January 2007 Plaintiffs
filed a Declaratory Judgment action against CapTran, seeking a declaration that
CapTran did not have a lien on $5625.00 of Cross’s workers’ compensation benefits. Plaintiffs asserted that CapTran was barred
from obtaining a lien on the proceeds of Cross’s workers’ compensation claim by
N.C. Gen. Stat. §97-21 (2007). On 29
March 2007 Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint naming Wayne Walker as an
additional defendant. In a series of
assignments, Walker obtained CapTran’s interest in the agreements signed by
Cross and CapTran. Defendant CapTran
was dismissed from the action, and is not a party to this appeal.
On 24 August 2007 the matter was heard by the trial court,
and on 4 September 2007 the court entered an order declaring that Walker held a
valid lien on $5625.00 of Cross’s workers’ compensation benefits, and ordering
Scudder “to transfer the compensation proceeds in the amount of $5,625.00 to
Defendant Walker.” From this order
Plaintiff timely appealed.
Standard of Review
“The standard of review in declaratory judgment actions
where the trial court decides questions of fact is whether the trial court’s
findings are supported by any competent evidence. Where the findings are supported by competent evidence, the trial
court’s findings of fact are conclusive on appeal.” Lineberger v. N.C. Dep’t of Corr., __ N.C. App. __, __,
657 S.E.2d 673, 678 (2008) (citations omitted). “However, the trial court’s conclusions of law are reviewable de
novo.” Browning v. Helff,
136 N.C. App. 420, 423, 524 S.E.2d 95, 98 (2000) (citations omitted).
___________________
Plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred by concluding
that Defendant held a lien on Cross’s workers’ compensation benefits. At issue is the proper interpretation of
N.C. Gen. Stat. §97-21 (2007), “Claims unassignable and exempt from taxes and
debts[,]” which provides in pertinent part:
No claim for
compensation under this Article shall be assignable, and all compensation and
claims therefor shall be exempt from all claims of creditors and from taxes.
This
appeal presents two questions: (1) does the prohibition in G.S. §97-21 against
assignment of a workers’ compensation claim include a bar on the advance assignment
of workers’ compensation benefits? and (2) is Defendant a creditor of
Plaintiff, and thus barred from asserting a claim to Plaintiff’s workers’
compensation proceeds? We answer both
questions affirmatively, and conclude that (1) G.S. §97-21 prohibits assignment
of workers’ compensation claims, benefits, or awards; and that (2) the
transaction at issue was a loan and Defendant is a creditor of Plaintiff.
We first consider the statutory provision that “[n]o claim for compensation under this Article shall be assignable[.]” Plaintiffs argue that “the plain language of the statute does not give rise to an interpretation differentiating a claim for compensation and the compensation arising from the claim.” We agree.
“In resolving issues of statutory interpretation, we look
first to the language of the statute itself.”
Rhyne v. K-Mart Corp., 149 N.C. App. 672, 685, 562 S.E.2d 82, 92
(2002) (citing Sara Lee Corp. v. Carter, 351 N.C. 27, 519 S.E.2d 308
(1999)). As regards N.C. Gen. Stat.
§97-21, the statute’s title states in part “Claims unassignable and
exempt from taxes and debts[.]” (emphasis added). However, the statute addresses the bar on assignment of a
workers’ compensation “claim” separately from the exemption from creditors and
taxes of “compensation and claims.” The
heading’s use of the word “claims” to refer to both parts of the statute
indicates that, for purposes of N.C. Gen. Stat. §97-21, there is no functional
difference between the “claim” and the “compensation.”
The North Carolina Supreme Court also has used these terms
interchangeably. In Higgins v.
Simmons, 324 N.C. 100, 376 S.E.2d 449 (1989), the North Carolina Supreme
Court discussed, in dicta, whether §97-21 prohibited garnishment of a
bank account that had been funded in part by proceeds from a workers’
compensation claim. The Court stated
that “the garnishee bank has no standing to enforce this right of its depositor
under the Workers’ Compensation Act” and explained:
[T]he personal
character of compensation payments has resulted in their being made nonassignable
by statute[.] . . . Once the proceeds from a compensation claim have been
deposited in a bank, they become indistinguishable from other funds on deposit.
Higgins, 324 N.C. at
103-04, 376 S.E.2d at 452 (emphasis added).
Significantly, the Court stated that workers’ compensation payments were
not assignable.
Our conclusion, that G.S. §97-21 prohibits assignment of a
workers’ compensation claim or of the proceeds of such a claim, is supported by
the significant differences between an employee’s statutory rights to workers’
compensation benefits and an individual’s common law rights in a personal
injury or tort suit. For example, “the
remedies sought in a workers’ compensation claim and a tort claim are
different, and . . . only tort claims, not workers’ compensation claims, are
tried before a jury.” Brooks v.
Paulk & Cope, Inc., 176 F. Supp. 2d 1270, 1276 (M.D. AL 2001) “There is no question that the Supreme Court
agrees that benefits received on account of worker’s compensation are different
from damages awarded in connection with a tort claim.” In re Sanchez, 362 B.R. 342, 349
(Bankr. W.D. MI. 2007). Thus,
“[c]lassification of a claim as a worker’s compensation claim, as opposed to a
personal injury claim, produces very different results.” In re Gregoire, 210 B.R. 432, 434
(Bankr. D.R.I. 1997). Indeed:
[t]he
distinction is not merely a procedural matter of bringing an action in the
wrong forum. As amici point out, there
are fundamental differences between a claim for workers’ compensation benefits
and a lawsuit seeking civil damages. .
. . [T]he purposes, remedies available, evidentiary burdens, and standards of
proof employed in adjudicating within the two distinct systems are different by
legislative design.
HDH
Corp. v. Atlantic Charter Ins. Co., 425 Mass. 433, 437-38, 681 N.E.2d 847,
851 (1997). In North Carolina:
“By statute the
Superior Court is divested of original jurisdiction of all actions which come
within the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.” The Act provides that its remedies shall be
an employee’s only remedies against his or her employer for claims covered by
the Act. N.C.G.S. §97-10.1 [(2007)]. Remedies available at common law are
specifically excluded.
Lemmerman
v. A.T. Williams Oil Co., 318 N.C. 577, 579, 350 S.E.2d 83, 85 (1986)
(quoting Morse v. Curtis, 276 N.C. 371, 375, 172 S.E.2d 495, 498
(1970)).
“The workers’ compensation system is a creature of statute
enacted by the General Assembly and is codified in Chapter 97 of the North Carolina
General Statutes.” Frost v. Salter
Path Fire & Rescue, 361 N.C. 181, 184, 639 S.E.2d 429, 432 (2007). The Workers’ Compensation Act provides that
an employee is entitled to compensation for certain occupational diseases or
for an “injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the
employment[.]” N.C. Gen. Stat. §97-2(6)
(2007). “The term ‘compensation’ means
the money allowance payable to an employee” pursuant to statute, N.C. Gen.
Stat. §97-2(11) (2007), and includes both disability and medical
compensation. Disability is the
“incapacity because of injury to earn the wages which the employee was
receiving at the time of injury in the same or any other employment[,]” N.C.
Gen. Stat. §97-2(9) (2007), and disability compensation generally consists of
the payment of approximately two-thirds of his salary for a certain period of
time. See N.C. Gen. Stat. §97-29
(2007) and G.S. §97-31 (2007). “Medical
compensation” is the “medical, surgical, hospital, nursing, and rehabilitative
services, and medicines . . . and other treatment . . . as may reasonably be
required to effect a cure or give relief[.]” N.C. Gen. Stat. §97-2(19) (2007).
An injured employee is not required to prove negligence on
the part of his employer to qualify for workers’ compensation benefits;
however, workers’ compensation benefits “exclude all other rights and remedies
of the employee. . . against the employer at common law or otherwise[.]” N.C. Gen. Stat. §97-10.1 (2007). Thus:
As this Court
has often discussed, the North Carolina Workers’ Compensation Act was created
to ensure that injured employees receive sure and certain recovery for their
work-related injuries without having to prove negligence on the part of the
employer or defend against charges of contributory negligence. In exchange for these “limited but assured
benefits,” the employee is generally barred from suing the employer for
potentially larger damages in civil negligence actions and is instead limited
exclusively to those remedies set forth in the Act.
Whitaker
v. Town of Scotland Neck, 357 N.C. 552, 556, 597 S.E.2d 665, 667 (2003)
(quoting Pleasant v. Johnson, 312 N.C. 710, 712, 325 S.E.2d 244, 246-47
(1985)) (citation omitted).
“In ascertaining legislative intent, we are guided by the
language of the statute, the spirit of the act, and what the statute seeks to
accomplish. . . . The Workers’
Compensation Act is designed to relieve against hardship. To that end, one of its primary purposes is
to provide a swift and certain remedy to injured workers without the necessity
of protracted litigation.” Foster v.
Western-Electric Co., 320 N.C. 113, 116, 357 S.E.2d 670, 672-73 (1987)
(citations omitted). We conclude that
the purposes of the Workers’ Compensation Act are supported by the prohibition
against advance assignment of workers’ compensation benefits.
Defendant argues that, because G.S. §97-21 does
not specify that the unassignability of workers’ compensation claims applies to
compensation awarded to a claimant, we should infer that workers’ compensation
benefits may be assigned. Defendant
directs our attention to the common law distinction in personal injury claims
between assignment of claims and compensation for claims, and urges us to apply
this distinction to assignment of workers’ compensation claims. Defendant fails to articulate a rationale
for importing this common law distinction into workers’ compensation law, and
we find none. Moreover, workers’
compensation is a creature of statute, and there is a statute expressing a
clear intent to bar assignment of workers’ compensation benefits. In contrast, there is no analogous statute
barring assignment of personal injury compensation.
We conclude that the prohibition in G.S. §97-21 against
assignment of a workers’ compensation claim refers, not just to assignment of
the Industrial Commission Form 18 “claim” filed by a workers’ compensation
claimant, but also bars assignment of the proceeds of such a claim. This assignment of error is overruled.
We next consider the second part of the statute which states
that “all compensation and claims therefor shall be exempt from all claims of
creditors[.]” G.S. §97-21.
A “creditor” is defined in pertinent part in Black’s Law
Dictionary 396 (8th ed. 2004) as “(1) One to whom a debt is owed.” “A debt is something due from one person,
the debtor, to another called the creditor, and may be created by simple
contract or evidenced by specialty or judgment according to the nature of the
obligation giving rise to it.” Summit
Silk Co. v. Kinston Spinning Co., 154 N.C. 421, 428-29, 70 S.E. 820, 823
(1911).
In the instant case, Defendant claims a lien on the proceeds
of Plaintiff Cross’s workers’ compensation benefits, on the grounds that the
terms of their agreement require Cross to repay him for the funds that Defendant
advanced to Cross, as well as an additional “investment fee.” We conclude that the transaction was a loan
and that Defendant is a creditor of Plaintiff.
As a creditor, Defendant cannot attach a lien on Plaintiff’s workers’
compensation benefits or compensation.
Defendant, however, argues that he is not a creditor, on the
grounds that transaction was a “sale” not a loan. We disagree. “A loan is
‘made upon the delivery by one party and the receipt by the other party of a
given sum of money, an agreement, express or implied, to repay the sum lent,
with or without interest.’ . . . ‘[C]ourts of this state regard the substance
of a transaction, rather than its outward appearance, as controlling.’” State ex rel. Cooper v. NCCS Loans, Inc.,
174 N.C. App. 630, 634, 624 S.E.2d 371, 374 (2005) (quoting Kessing v.
Mortgage Corp., 278 N.C. 523, 529, 180 S.E.2d 823, 827 (1971); and Auto
Supply v. Vick, 303 N.C. 30, 37, 277 S.E.2d 360, 366 (1981)). In Cooper usurious “pay day loans”
were disguised as contracts for the sale of Internet service. This Court concluded that the contracts were
a sham:
To review, in
return for immediate cash, Advance Internet customers must repay both the sum
advanced and an additional fee of at least 20% of the amount of cash received.
. . . We conclude that, notwithstanding the facial resemblance to Internet
service contracts, it is transparently obvious that defendants are offering
loans, not bona fide internet service contracts.
Cooper, 174 N.C. App.
at 638, 624 S.E.2d at 377. Similarly,
in return for immediate cash, Cross signed an agreement obligating her to “both
the sum advanced and an additional fee of [125%] of the amount of cash
received.” We conclude that this
transaction constituted a loan, notwithstanding it’s facial disguise as the
“sale” of proceeds of workers’ compensation “litigation.” “‘Where a transaction is in reality a loan
of money, whatever may be its form, . . . [t]he law considers the substance and
not the mere form or outward appearance of the transaction in order to
determine what it in reality is.’” Kessing,
278 N.C. at 531, 180 S.E.2d at 828
(quoting Ripple v. Mortgage Corp., 193 N.C. 422, 424, 137 S.E.
156, 158 (1927)).
Moreover, the character of a transaction is not
automatically changed by the inclusion of a condition under which repayment
would be forgiven. “[I]t makes no
difference in the result, if we construe the agreement as requiring repayment
by the Texas corporations only in the event that their operations should prove
successful. A loan is no less a loan
because its repayment is made contingent[.]”
Island Petroleum Co. v. Commissioner, 57 F.2d 992, 994 (4th
Cir. 1932). “Neither is the term
‘investment’ in any way contradictory of a ‘loan.’ The word ‘advance’ in the connotation here used, commonly means a
loan of money.” Whittemore Homes,
Inc. v. Fleishman, 190 Cal. App. 2d 554, 558, 12 Cal. Rptr. 235, 236 (1961)
(citations omitted).
In the instant case, the parties’ agreement provided that
(1) Defendant would advance funds to Plaintiff; and (2) upon receipt of
workers’ compensation benefits, Plaintiff would repay the amount advanced and
an additional “investment fee.” We
conclude that the essential character of this transaction was a loan. Accordingly, Defendant was a creditor of
Plaintiff, and could not assert a claim to her workers’ compensation
benefits. This assignment of error is
overruled.
We agree with Plaintiffs that the North Carolina cases
allowing certain parties to reach workers’ compensation benefits are easily
distinguished from this case. In State
v. Miller, 77 N.C. App. 436, 335 S.E.2d 187 (1985), this Court held that
the exemption of workers’ compensation benefits from the claims of creditors
did not apply to an order for child support.
The Court held that the “obligation to support one’s children is not a
‘debt’ in the legal sense of the word[, and] . . . helping to sustain the
dependants of employees disabled on the job is one of the main purposes of our
Workers’ Compensation Act.” Id.
at 438-39, 335 S.E.2d at 188-89. The
instant case does not implicate child support law.
In Sara Lee Corp. v. Carter, 351 N.C. 27, 35, 519
S.E.2d 308, 313 (1999), “overwhelming evidence presented at trial led the trial
court to conclude, inter alia, that defendant engaged in fraud, breach
of fiduciary duty, and unfair and deceptive acts or practices. The trial court then ordered that ‘a
constructive trust for the benefit of [plaintiff] is hereby imposed over any
and all workers[‘] compensation benefits that [defendant] is or shall be
entitled to receive[.]’” On appeal, the
defendant argued that G.S. §97-21 barred the trial court’s imposition of a
constructive trust. The North Carolina
Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the statutory language “does not preclude
the trial court from imposing the equitable remedy of a constructive trust . .
. under this extraordinary and unique set of facts[.]” Id. at 35-36, 516 S.E.2d at 313-14. The holding in Sara Lee was based
on the “extraordinary and unique” facts of that case, and upheld the trial court’s
imposition of the equitable remedy of a constructive trust, not a claimant’s
advance assignment of workers’ compensation benefits.
For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that G.S.
§97-21 bars Defendant’s assertion of a
lien on the proceeds of Plaintiff’s workers’ compensation claim, and that the
trial court’s order must be
Reversed.
Judges HUNTER and ELMORE concur.