Volume 202 — North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports

<bold>1. Appeal and Error — claim not preserved —</bold> <bold>claim preclusion</bold> <block_quote> Defendant did not preserve for appeal his argument that plaintiffs presented insufficient evidence that mobile billboard sales/lease-back investments sold by defendant were "securities" as defined by N.C.G.S. §§ <cross_reference>78A-1</cross_reference> to -66. Moreover, a federal district court's prior holding that the investments at issue were securities precluded defendant from re-litigating the issue in the present case.</block_quote> <bold>2. Securities — exempt from registration —</bold> <bold>offer or — number of investors</bold> The trial court did not err in denying defendant's motions for summary judgment and JNOV and the issue of whether mobile billboard sales/lease-back investments sold by defendant were exempt from registration under N.C.G.S. § <cross_reference>78A-17</cross_reference>(9) was properly submitted to the jury. Mobile Billboards of America, not defendant, was the "offeror" of the securities and there was a triable issue of fact concerning the number of individuals who had invested in the securities. <bold>3. Statutes of Limitation and Repose — securities</bold> <bold>— claims not time barred</bold> The trial court did not err in denying defendant's motions for summary judgment and JNOV because even if the issue of whether defendant was liable for selling unregistered securities was barred by a two-year statute of limitations, the issues pertaining to plaintiffs' security claims under N.C.G.S. §§ <cross_reference>78A-8</cross_reference> and -56 were subject to a three-year statute of limitations, which had not expired before the complaint was filed. <bold>4. Fraud — billboard sales and lease —</bold> <bold>sufficient evidence</bold> The trial court did not err in denying defendant's motions for directed verdict and JNOV on plaintiffs' claims for actual fraud and securities fraud as there was sufficient evidence to support each element of both claims. Defendant abandoned his assignment of error challenging the jury's finding him liable for constructive fraud.<page_number>Page 588</page_number> 5. <bold>Evidence — relevance —</bold> <bold>exclusion proper or nonprejudicial</bold> Defendant's argument that the trial court erred in excluding certain evidence was overruled. Some of the challenged evidence was either correctly excluded as irrelevant or, even if erroneously excluded, was nonprejudicial. Furthermore, defendant failed to make an offer of proof with respect to the remaining challenged evidence so the exclusion of this evidence was not reviewed on appeal.