In this opinion the North Carolina Court of Appeals addressed a family property dispute centering on the validity of a power of attorney (POA) and subsequent conveyances made under that authority. The plaintiff challenged the legitimacy of a 2018 deed conveying his late mother's property to the defendants, asserting that the original POA was invalid because his mother lacked mental capacity and had been unduly influenced. While unpublished and non-precedential under Rule 30(e), Harrington provides instructive guidance on the intersection of contract law, estates, and property conveyance timing in North Carolina civil practice.

Although a jury found in the plaintiff's favor, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the action was filed well beyond the applicable statute of limitations. The Court concluded that the plaintiff's claims were, in essence, contract-based, and thus governed by the three-year limitation period under N.C.G.S. Section 1-52(1).

The dispute stems from a series of transactions beginning in 2016 involving the plaintiff's parents and the defendants, who were family friends or caretakers. On June 24, 2016, the plaintiff's parents executed a power of attorney agreement appointing the defendant and another person, now deceased, as their attorneys-in-fact. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff's parents conveyed their real property, the family home, to the defendant. The plaintiff's father died later that year in September 2016. Two years later, in 2018, the defendants conveyed the property back to the plaintiff's mother. That same day, however, the defendant purporting to act under the Power of Attorney, executed a deed on her behalf, this time granting a remainder interest in the property to himself and his wife.

The plaintiff's mother passed away on June 26, 2019, at which point title to the property vested in the defendants under the 2018 deed. Three years later, in September 2022, the plaintiff filed a quiet title action asserting that the POA, and consequently all deeds executed under it, were invalid because his mother lacked the requisite mental capacity to execute the POA and had been subject to fraud or undue influence.

At trial, the plaintiff presented evidence suggesting that his mother was suffering from dementia and cognitive decline at the time she signed the 2016 POA. Witnesses testified that she was of "advanced age," unable to drive, in nursing home care at various times, and had recently undergone major surgery. He also introduced evidence that the POA was improperly executed (mis-initialed) and that the defendant had been in a position of trust, managing her finances and health care needs.

The jury returned a verdict in the plaintiff's favor, finding that his mother lacked capacity to execute the 2016 POA. Based on the verdict, the trial court entered judgment voiding the 2018 deed and restoring title to the plaintiff. The defendants' motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, alternatively, for a new trial were denied. The defendants appealed, raising several issues, including challenges to jury instructions, verdict form inconsistencies, and laches, but their primary contention was that the plaintiff's claims were time-barred.

The defendants presented four main issues for appellate review, whether the trial court erred by:

Submitting the question of the mother's capacity to the jury.
Submitting certain jury instructions and verdict issues that were improper or inconsistent.
Concluding that the plaintiff's claims were not barred by the statute of limitations.
By failing to submit the equitable defense of laches to the jury.

Finding it dispositive, the Court of Appeals only addressed the issue of application of the statute of limitations. The Court noted that there is no specific statute of limitations governing actions to quiet title under N.C.G.S. Section 41-10. In such cases, the appropriate statute depends on the underlying legal theory. Citing Walter v. Walter, 275 N.C. App. 956 (2020), the Court emphasized that a quiet title claim premised on the invalidity of a contract or instrument must be analyzed according to the limitation period governing that underlying claim. Here, the "heart of the matter" was the validity of the 2016 POA agreement. Because a POA functions contractually, the Court relied on O'Neal v. O'Neal, 254 N.C. App. 309 (2017), which held that powers of attorney are generally treated as contracts. Therefore, the applicable limitations period was three years under N.C.G.S. Section 1-52(1).

The Court observed that the cause of action could have accrued at one of two points: When the allegedly invalid POA was executed on June 24, 2016, or when the defendants' ownership rights vested upon the mother's death on June 26, 2019. Regardless of which event applies, the plaintiff's September 2022 filing occurred more than three years after either date, rendering the action untimely.

The plaintiff also argued that either N.C.G.S. Section 1-38 or N.C.G.S. Section 1-47 could extend or alter the limitations period. The Court rejected both arguments, explaining that neither statute addressed the underlying contractual nature of the claim. The essence of this case was the validity of the 2016 POA, not the defendants' possession or color of title.

The plaintiff next contended that any applicable limitations period should be tolled due to his mother's incapacity before her death and his own alleged disabilities afterward. The Court acknowledged that the "survivor statute," N.C.G.S. Section 1-22, allows a decedent's personal representative to file an action within one year after the decedent's death if the claim had not already expired. However, even assuming tolling during the mother's lifetime, her death on June 26, 2019, triggered a one-year filing window. Thus, any claim based on her rights had to be filed by June 26, 2020. The plaintiff's 2022 filing came more than two years too late. Moreover, the Court clarified that the survivor statute does not grant an heir (such as the plaintiff) a personal right to extend or toll that period further.

Concluding that the plaintiff's claims were barred by the statute of limitations, the Court reversed the trial court's judgment. Because this holding was dispositive, the Court declined to reach the defendants' remaining arguments regarding jury instructions, verdict validity, or laches.

In summary, quiet title claims do not have a dedicated statute of limitations; courts look to the underlying legal theory. When the dispute arises from a contract or POA, the three-year limit under § 1-52(1) applies. As reaffirmed in O'Neal, a POA functions like a contractual instrument, and challenges to its validity must be brought within three years of accrual. Accrual timing is critical in estate-related claims. Even where mental incapacity or alleged fraud is involved, the limitations clock begins running from execution or, at the latest, when title or rights vest. The survivor statute is to be strictly applied. The one-year extension under N.C.G.S. Section 1-22 applies only to a personal representative and not to individual heirs. Delaying beyond that period is fatal to claims derived from a decedent. Equitable defenses may be moot when claims are time-barred. The Court's reversal on limitations grounds rendered unnecessary any analysis of laches or equitable considerations in this case.

This decision underscores the importance of timely litigation in property and estate disputes involving powers of attorney. Even where a plaintiff presents compelling evidence of incapacity or undue influence, North Carolina's strict statutory limitations can prove determinative. From a title perspective, the opinion may provide support for underwriting decisions where questionable instruments may be clearly time barred and the known fact support reliance.