## Facts

- Terry Stuart Miller bought a residential lot and, after marrying Annette K. Miller, built and lived in a home titled solely in Terry’s name.
- The parties separated and executed a separation agreement giving Terry sole possession of the residence; after a brief failed reconciliation, Terry claimed the parties agreed Annette would not return unless invited or Terry was present, and she returned her key.
- Annette retained Gregory F. Brooks and Brooks Investigations, Inc., and others to conduct surveillance of Terry.
- Annette met Brooks and an associate at the house, where a locksmith made a key for access.
- While Terry was away, Brooks and an associate entered the residence, altered wiring, and installed a concealed video camera in the bedroom ceiling.
- Terry discovered signs of entry, hired a private detective, located and removed the camera and a videotape depicting Terry in private activities in his bedroom and showing investigators in the bedroom.
- Annette also instructed the post office to hold mail for the residence and regularly retrieved and examined Terry’s mail, discarding some items and returning others to the mailbox; an associate retrieved mail at least once for her.
- Terry alleged he became fearful for his safety, temporarily moved out, and carried a loaded shotgun in his car.
- Terry sued Annette and the investigators for invasion of privacy (intrusion upon seclusion), trespass, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (among other claims).
- The trial court granted summary judgment to all defendants on all claims, and Terry appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether North Carolina recognizes the tort of invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion and, if so, whether secretly filming in a bedroom and intercepting mail could support the claim.
2. Whether summary judgment was proper on trespass where there was evidence defendants entered the residence while Terry had exclusive possession.
3. Whether the alleged conduct could constitute extreme and outrageous conduct causing severe emotional distress sufficient for an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.
4. Whether the marital relationship or alleged co-ownership/tenancy-in-common theories barred intrusion or trespass claims under these facts.

## Decision

- The court recognized invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion as a cognizable tort in North Carolina.
- The court reversed summary judgment on the intrusion claim, holding the forecast evidence of hidden bedroom surveillance and mail interception was sufficient for a jury.
- The court reversed summary judgment on trespass because the record showed intentional entries while Terry had possession, and factual disputes existed as to Annette’s authority or permission to enter and to authorize others to enter (and whether any permission was exceeded).
- The court reversed summary judgment on intentional infliction of emotional distress because a jury could find the conduct extreme and outrageous, undertaken with reckless indifference to likely distress, and could find severe emotional distress based on Terry’s reaction and symptoms.
- The court rejected categorical defenses based on marriage or asserted co-ownership, emphasizing the separation agreement and evidence supporting Terry’s exclusive possessory interest and expectation of privacy.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- North Carolina recognizes invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion, solitude, or private affairs; clandestine observation or recording in a private bedroom can constitute an actionable intrusion.
- Interfering with another’s private affairs, including intercepting and examining mail, may support an intrusion-upon-seclusion claim when it invades a reasonable expectation of privacy.
- Trespass may be shown by intentional entry upon property in another’s possession without permission; summary judgment is improper where material facts exist about consent, scope of permission, or right of possession.
- A spouse’s status does not automatically immunize entry or surveillance directed at the other spouse; a separation agreement and circumstances establishing exclusive possession can support both privacy and trespass claims.
- Intentional infliction of emotional distress requires extreme and outrageous conduct that intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress; covert entry and bedroom surveillance may satisfy the standard when evidence supports severe distress.

## Conclusion

The court held that North Carolina recognizes intrusion upon seclusion and that evidence of covert entry, hidden bedroom videotaping, and mail interception created triable issues on invasion of privacy, trespass, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, notwithstanding defenses premised on the parties’ marital relationship or asserted shared property interests.


Miller v. Brooks, 123 N.C. App. 20, 472 S.E.2d 350 (1996)