Andrew S. Brendle is a partner at Hull & Chandler, P.A. who focuses on business litigation and family law. Mr. Brendle has assisted clients with a broad range of business disputes, including breach of contracts, unfair and deceptive trade practices, fraud, restrictive covenants, and intellectual property. He also has an extensive background in family law including divorce, alimony, child custody and equitable distribution.
Mr. Brendle is a member of the North Carolina State Bar Association, the 26th Judicial District Bar, the Mecklenburg County Bar Association and the American Bar Association. He is licensed to practice in all Superior and District Courts in North Carolina and the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. In addition to regularly appearing in District Court and Superior Court, Andrew has represented clients before the North Carolina Court of Appeals and the North Carolina Business Court. While he focuses most of his attention on litigation in Mecklenburg County, Mr. Brendle also travels to represent clients throughout North Carolina.
Mr. Brendle received his undergraduate degree from Hampden-Sydney College, where he graduated with Honors in Political Science, and obtained his law degree from Campbell University School of Law. He also studied English history while abroad at the University of Oxford, England. His passion for history and political science not only led him to the practice of law, but also resulted in his induction into two national academic honor societies: Pi Sigma Alpha and Phi Alpha Theta.
Appellate and Notable Case Results
The following is a partial list of results we have achieved for our clients.* Unless otherwise specified, each of the following matters was contested, the opposing parties were represented, the matters involved complex legal and/or factual issues, and our firm was successful in the positions taken. The matters cover a time frame from 2016 to the present.
- Jason Kyle v. Helmi L. Felfel and Laura C. Felfel, No. COA16-1318, Plaintiff sued to enforce a $200,000.00 promissory note. The promissory note was unenforceable for lack of consideration. You may read the full opinion here: https://appellate.nccourts.org/opinions/?c=2&pdf=35477.
- Horne Heating & Air Conditioning Co. v. Horne, Mecklenburg County 16-CVS-21608 (North Carolina Business Court). Successfully defended complex business litigation matter in which the Defendants faced claims of breach of contract, breach of tortious interference with contractual relations, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment, conversion, and breach of fiduciary duties with respect to the beneficiary designation of a $500,000.00 life insurance policy.
- Smith v. Smith, No. COA15-185, case of first impression for North Carolina courts. The North Carolina Court of Appeals addressed a parent's obligation to pay for private school tuition for minor children when the parents' combined incomes exceeded the $300,000.00 North Carolina Child Support Guideline threshold. You may read the full opinion here: https://appellate.nccourts.org/opinions/?c=2&pdf=33156
- Gillespie v. Majestic Transport, Inc., Cabarrus County Superior Court 16-CVS-324 (North Carolina Business Court). Successfully defended complex business litigation matter in which the Defendants faced claims of breach of partnership agreement, breach of fiduciary duty, constructive fraud, civil conspiracy, fraud, conversion, and punitive damages with respect to motor carrier partnership dispute.
- Smith v. Smith, No. COA 15-331, enforcement of child support pending appeal of the underlying child support order. You may read the full opinion here:https://appellate.nccourts.org/opinions/?c=2&pdf-34236
*The list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute a promise or guarantee of any particular result in any particular case, nor is it intended to create the expectation that similar results can be achieved in a potential case. Every case we handle at Hull & Chandler, P.A., is different and has its own unique facts. The foregoing list of cases were handled and resolved based on the individual facts and merits of the case. The outcome of any potential case cannot be predicted based on past results.