State Board of Examiners of Plumbing, Heating and Fire Sprinkler Contractors v. Hudson, COA24-136, ___ N.C. App. ___ (May. 21, 2025)

In this Burke County case, defendant appealed the order holding him in indirect criminal contempt, arguing error in denying his motion to dismiss, lack of jurisdiction, and that the statute of limitations barred the contempt proceeding. The Court of Appeals found no error and affirmed the order.

In 2001, the State Board of Examiners of Plumbing, Heating, and Fire Sprinkler Contractors (State Board) obtained an injunction against defendant barring him from engaging in any plumbing, heating, or fire sprinkler business without a license from the State Board. Over the years, the State Board investigated complaints against defendant, most recently in 2021 where investigators turned up evidence defendant performed work on an HVAC unit. After a show cause hearing in 2023, the trial court entered an order holding defendant in indirect criminal contempt for violating the injunction. The trial court initially issued an oral ruling and filed a form document titled “Order in Indirect Criminal Contempt Proceeding” in July 2023. This was followed in August 2023 by the “Order of Contempt and Order of Arrest” with findings of fact and conclusions of law.

The Court of Appeals first established the applicable standard for review on the motion to dismiss, noting that indirect criminal contempt proceedings are similar to normal criminal trials and “a show-cause order in a criminal contempt proceeding, while not ‘equivalent’ to a criminal indictment is ‘akin’ to one.” Slip Op. at 8 (cleaned up). The court determined the substantial evidence standard was appropriate and reviewed the trial court’s order de novo, finding substantial evidence to support denying defendant’s motion.

The court next considered defendant’s argument that the trial court lacked jurisdiction. Defendant initially filed an appeal after the July 2023 oral ruling and form document order, which he argued deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to enter the later August 2023 order. The court disagreed, explaining the July ruling and form did not represent a final judgment or appealable interlocutory order. Instead, the order from August “was the trial court’s final judgment,” as it was file-stamped and “included the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to [G.S.] 5A-15(f).” Id. at 16-17.

Finally, defendant argued that indirect criminal contempt was barred by the two-year statute of limitations on misdemeanors in G.S. 15-1. The court disagreed that the misdemeanor statute of limitations applied, explaining “criminal contempt is not tantamount to a traditional ‘crime.’” Id. at 23. To support this reasoning, the court explained the nature of criminal contempt, and pointed to State v. Burrow, 248 N.C. App. 663, 670 (2016), where the court had previously held “a criminal contempt adjudication is not a misdemeanor in North Carolina.” Slip Op. at 24. The court also noted that the contempt provisions are in G.S. Chapter 5A, not in G.S. Chapter 14 with the majority of other penal statutes, and Chapter 5A contains no statute of limitations.