The North Carolina Supreme Court issued a brief per curiam opinion Thursday affirming a Court of Appeals decision that authorized the foreclosure of real property in Orange County, concluding a complex legal dispute that has stretched over two decades.
The case stems from a deed of trust executed on Oct. 31, 2003, by Virginia Lee Godfrey and Harry Craig Dees II for $150,000, originally payable to RBC Centura Bank. The deed of trust was recorded on Nov. 11, 2003, in the Orange County Registry. The property is now subject to foreclosure proceedings initiated by Trustee Services of Carolina LLC, acting as substitute trustee.
The Supreme Court's one-word "AFFIRMED" decision upholds the Court of Appeals' reversal of Superior Court Judge Alyson Adams Grine's order from May 30, 2023. Judge Grine had initially denied the foreclosure authorization, but the Court of Appeals reversed that decision in a divided panel ruling issued earlier this year, with the opinion reported at 298 N.C. App. 29, 914 S.E.2d 14 (2025).
The appellate court's decision included specific instructions for the trial court to "enter an order authorizing foreclosure," which the Supreme Court has now definitively endorsed. The high court heard oral arguments in the case on Nov. 5, 2025, before issuing its ruling on Dec. 12.
Virginia Lee Godfrey, represented by Joseph Z. Frost of Buckmiller & Frost PLLC, challenged the foreclosure proceedings as the respondent-appellant. Paper Profits LLC, the current holder of the note, was represented by Alan M. Presel of Brock & Scott PLLC and served as petitioner-appellee in the Supreme Court proceedings.
The case illustrates the complex chain of ownership that can develop in mortgage and deed of trust transactions over time. While the original deed of trust was executed in favor of RBC Centura Bank in 2003, the current proceedings involve Paper Profits LLC as the note holder, suggesting the debt has been transferred or assigned multiple times over the intervening years.
Foreclosure proceedings in North Carolina typically involve strict procedural requirements and multiple opportunities for borrower protection. The fact that this case reached the state's highest court suggests there were substantive legal issues in dispute, though the per curiam nature of the Supreme Court's ruling provides no insight into the specific legal reasoning that ultimately prevailed.
The Court of Appeals' decision was notable for being issued by a divided panel, indicating at least one appellate judge disagreed with the majority's conclusion to reverse the trial court's denial of foreclosure authorization. However, the Supreme Court's unanimous affirmance suggests any dissenting concerns at the appellate level were ultimately unfounded.
Per curiam decisions, while brief, carry the same precedential weight as fully reasoned opinions. The Supreme Court's choice to issue a per curiam affirmance rather than a detailed opinion suggests the justices viewed the legal issues as sufficiently settled by existing precedent or the Court of Appeals' reasoning.
The timeline of the case reflects the deliberate pace of appellate proceedings. Judge Grine's May 2023 order denying foreclosure was appealed to the Court of Appeals, which issued its reversal in 2025. Godfrey then sought discretionary review from the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case and ultimately affirmed the appellate court's decision.
For property owners facing foreclosure, the case underscores the importance of understanding both procedural requirements and substantive defenses available under North Carolina law. While the specific grounds for Judge Grine's initial denial of foreclosure are not detailed in the Supreme Court's brief order, the ultimate reversal suggests those grounds were legally insufficient.
The involvement of a substitute trustee, Trustee Services of Carolina LLC, is common in North Carolina foreclosure proceedings. Substitute trustees are often appointed when the original trustee named in a deed of trust is unavailable or when the note has been transferred to new ownership.
Paper Profits LLC's role as the current note holder reflects the secondary mortgage market's impact on individual borrowers. Original lenders frequently sell loans to investors or loan servicers, creating potential complications for borrowers who may find themselves dealing with entities they never contracted with directly.
The case's resolution provides clarity for all parties involved and establishes that the foreclosure may now proceed according to North Carolina's statutory requirements. For Godfrey, the Supreme Court's ruling represents the exhaustion of appellate remedies, though she retains any rights available under applicable redemption statutes or other post-foreclosure protections.
The decision also reinforces the appellate courts' willingness to review trial court decisions that may improperly deny creditors' foreclosure rights when statutory and contractual requirements have been met. The Court of Appeals' initial reversal, now confirmed by the Supreme Court, sends a clear signal about the proper application of foreclosure law in North Carolina.