Link to original WordPerfect file
Link to PDF file
How to access the above link?
All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the North Carolina Reports and North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the
print version appearing in the North Carolina Reports and North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative.
ROBERT M. MAYO, Petitioner v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY,
Filed: 15 February 2005
1. Administrative Law_review of agency decision_de novo
The de novo standard of review was proper for review of an agency decision by NCSU
regarding an alleged overpayment of salary. De novo review must be used when a petitioner
alleges that an agency's decision is based upon an error of law.
2. Contracts_integration of documents_clear language_no parol evidence
Petitioner does not owe a debt to NCSU as result of an alleged overpayment of salary and
it is not necessary to address whether the superior court, upon de novo review, properly
determined the issue of estoppel. There was a full integration of the documents constituting the
employment agreement, the language of the agreement is clear and unambiguous, and the terms
relied upon by NCSU were not expressly included in that agreement. Parol evidence may not be
introduced to explain the agreement's terms because the language of the agreement was not
3. Creditors and Debtors_no contract_tendered check and garnishment_refund
As held above, petitioner does not owe a debt to NCSU, and the superior court erred by
failing to order NCSU to return a check from petitioner and a garnished tax refund.
Judge HUNTER dissenting.
Appeal by respondent and cross-appeal by petitioner from order
filed 13 November 2003 by Judge Donald W. Stephens in Wake County
Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 3 November 2004.
Young Moore & Henderson, P.A., by Christopher A. Page, for
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Q.
Shante' Martin, for respondent.
North Carolina State University (NCSU) (respondent) appeals an
order filed 13 November 2003, reversing an agency decision and
holding that respondent was estopped to claim an overpayment ofsalary owed by Robert M. Mayo (petitioner). Petitioner cross-
On 8 November 2002, NCSU conducted a hearing to determine the
validity of a debt NCSU claimed petitioner owed as result of a
salary overpayment. On 19 November 2002, NCSU issued its final
agency decision pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-42, upholding
the validity of the debt.
Petitioner filed a petition for judicial review on 20 December
2002. Petitioner subsequently filed an amended petition for
judicial review on 27 January 2003. This matter came for hearing
on the 5 November 2003 session of Wake County Superior Court with
the Honorable Donald W. Stephens presiding. By order filed 13
November 2003, the superior court reversed the final agency
decision, holding that it was affected by error of law and NCSU was
estopped to claim the overpayment of salary as a debt. The
superior court, however, held petitioner was not entitled to return
of the $500.00 check tendered by petitioner, nor return of any tax
refund garnished from petitioner.
On 11 December 2003, NCSU filed notice of appeal to this
Court. Petitioner filed his notice of appeal on 22 December 2003,
cross-appealing only the portion of the order holding that he was
entitled to return of either the check tendered or the seized tax
In July 2001, petitioner had worked for NCSU for a period of
ten years and was a tenured faculty member of NCSU's EngineeringDepartment and also served as Director of Graduate Programs for the
Nuclear Engineering Department. That same month, petitioner
informed his Department Head, Dr. Paul Turinsky that he desired to
leave NCSU's employment effective 1 September 2001. Dr. Turinsky
accepted petitioner's resignation, but failed to report the
resignation to NCSU's payroll department until 14 September 2001,
two weeks after petitioner's departure.
At the time of accepting petitioner's resignation, Dr.
Turinsky did not inform petitioner that petitioner would not be
entitled to any salary for the time period of 1 July 2001 through
14 August 2001. Nor did Dr. Turinsky inform petitioner that it was
NCSU's policy that salary paid to petitioner during the 1 July
through 14 August time period was a pre-payment for the upcoming
academic year, and if petitioner in fact received such money,
petitioner would have to repay NCSU the amount received. Dr.
Turinsky testified at the agency hearing that it was the department
head's duty to inform the faculty in the respective department of
the terms of their employment agreement. He also testified that
petitioner was at the department on a daily basis between July and
August 2001, working on department business, including serving as
the Director of Graduate Programs.
On 3 October 2001, Phyllis Jennette, NCSU's Special Payroll
Coordinator, informed petitioner that NCSU had determined that he
was overpaid in July and August 2001 by a net amount of $4,587.45.
The letter stated that the overpayment was due to your early
separation from [NCSU], which resulted in your overpayment for July
and August 2001.
Jennette requested petitioner to repay theamount of the overpayment. Petitioner declined.
By letter dated 10 April 2002, NCSU informed petitioner that
it had garnished his state income tax refund in the amount of
$437.88 pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105A. The letter stated that
the amount would be applied to petitioner's past due payroll debt.
NCSU claimed the debt owed was based on two terms of the
employment agreement between NCSU and petitioner. Those terms,
according to NCSU, include first, that the July and first half of
August salary payments to a nine-month employee are pre-payments
for the upcoming academic year. Second, when a nine-month employee
who is paid on a twelve-month basis, leaves during the fall of a
given academic year, that employee must repay the amount of
Dr. Turinsky testified at the agency hearing that these
employment terms were material terms of the employment agreement,
and that NCSU had the obligation to inform its faculty of the terms
of their employment agreement. Both Dr. Turinsky and Brian Simet,
NCSU's Director of Payroll Department, however, conceded at the
agency hearing that neither of the alleged terms were included in
the written employment agreement. Simet moreover testified that
these policies were not stated anywhere specifically.
Additionally, Dr. Turinsky testified that he had never heard of
those terms prior to being informed by the payroll department in
NCSU admits the only written documents constituting the
employment agreement between NCSU and petitioner are contained in
petitioner's appointment letter, his annual salary letter, and thepolicies adopted and amended by the UNC Board of Governors and by
the NCSU Board of Trustees. Petitioner's official appointment
letter stated, [y]our appointment is subject to all policies
adopted and amended by the UNC Board of Governors and by the NCSU
Board of Trustees. Pertinent sections of the UNC Code are printed
in the Faculty Handbook.
None of these documents set forth the
terms upon which NCSU based its claim for repayment.
Simet testified at the agency hearing that the only written
term of employment upon which the claim is based is the language
found in the section of the Faculty Handbook titled Appointment
Pay Periods. Upon cross-examination, however, Simet admitted the
provision is also silent concerning NCSU's assertion that salary
payments during July and the first half of August are to be
considered as pre-payments for the upcoming fall academic year, and
is silent concerning whether a faculty member who leaves prior to
commencement of the upcoming fall academic year must repay those
In support of his argument regarding entitlement to the
disputed salary, petitioner testified that in addition to working
during the time period of July 2001 through mid August 2001, he did
not receive the monthly salary that he was entitled to for the
first four months of his employment in 1991. Per his written
agreement, petitioner was to be paid at a rate of $3,833.33 per
month during the first year of his employment. Instead, he was
paid at the rate of $2,253.13 per month for the first four months.
In rebuttal, NCSU stated that petitioner was only entitled to the
$3,833.33 rate of pay if he had worked the entire twelve months ofthe previous academic year, and since he started in March, he was
entitled to only a portion of the rate of $3,833.33 per month.
This partial-pay policy was not contained in any of NCSU's written
policies, and petitioner argued he remained undercompensated for
his initial employment period.
Petitioner further testified that, as part of an agreement to
serve as Director of Graduate Programs, he was required to work one
summer month per academic year and was to receive additional
compensation equal to one month's salary. Petitioner served as
Director of Graduate Programs during July through August 2000, and
May through June 2001. In 2001, NCSU paid him a total of
$7,968.78, the agreed upon amount, for service as Director of
Graduate Programs for the 2000-2001 academic year. Petitioner
continued to serve as Director of Graduate Programs during July
through August 2001. Petitioner argued that he remained
undercompensated for his July through August 2001 service in this
The issues on appeal are whether the superior court erred when
it held: (I) NCSU was estopped from collecting money it claims
petitioner allegedly owed to NCSU as a result of an overpayment in
salary; and (II) NCSU could retain petitioner's tax refund and
settlement check tendered as reimbursement applied toward the debt
allegedly owed for salary overpayment.
I. NCSU's Appeal
 When a petitioner alleges that an agency's decision is
based upon an error of law, the superior court must undertake a denovo
review. Air-A-Plane Corp. v. N.C. Dept. of E.H.N.R.
N.C. App. 118, 124, 454 S.E.2d 297, 301 (1995).
Under the de novo
standard of review, the trial court 'considers the matter anew
and freely substitutes its own judgment for the agency's.' N.C.
Dep't of Env't & Natural Res. v. Carroll
, 358 N.C. 649, 660, 599
S.E.2d 888, 895 (2004) (citation omitted). Where, however, a
petitioner alleges that an agency's decision is unsupported by
substantial evidence in the record or is arbitrary and capricious,
the superior court must review the whole record to determine if
the agency's decision is supported by substantial evidence. Id.
When this Court reviews appeals from superior court either
affirming or reversing the decision of an administrative agency,
our scope of review is twofold, and is limited to determining: (1)
whether the superior court applied the appropriate standard of
review and, if so, (2) whether the superior court properly applied
this standard. In re Appeal by McCrary
, 112 N.C. App. 161, 166,
435 S.E.2d 359, 363 (1993). However, this Court's obligation to
review a superior court order for errors of law can be accomplished
by addressing the dispositive issue(s) before the agency and the
superior court without examining the scope of review utilized by
the superior court and remanding the case if the standard of review
utilized by the superior court cannot be ascertained. Capital
Outdoor, Inc. v. Guilford County Board of Adjustment
, 152 N.C. App.
474, 475, 567 S.E.2d 440, 441 (2002).
Upon review of the superior court's order, it appears that the
superior court properly utilized the de novo
standard of review as
to the issue presented. This Court must now determine whether itproperly applied the standard of review.
 With all contracts, the goal of construction is to arrive
at the intent of the parties when the contract was issued.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Ingles Mkts., Inc.
, 158 N.C. App. 414,
418, 581 S.E.2d 111, 115 (2003). The intent of the parties may be
derived from the language in the contract. Walton v. City of
, 342 N.C. 879, 881, 467 S.E.2d 410, 411 (1996). When the
contract language is unambiguous, our courts have a duty to
construe and enforce the contract as written, without disregarding
the express language used.
Southpark Mall Ltd. Part. v. CLT Food
, 142 N.C. App. 675, 679, 544 S.E.2d 14, 17 (2001).
However, if a contract contains language which is ambiguous, a
factual question exists, which must be resolved by the trier of
fact. Crider v. Jones Island Club, Inc
., 147 N.C. App. 262,
266-67, 554 S.E.2d 863, 866 (2001).
Moreover, the terms of employment contracts require sufficient
certainty and specificity with regard to the nature of the services
to be performed, the place in which the services are to be
rendered, and the compensation to be paid. Humphrey v. Hill
N.C. App. 359, 361, 285 S.E.2d 293, 295 (1982). As a general rule,
the law of contracts maintains that compensation is an essential
term for a contract to render services, and the term must be
definite and certain or capable of being ascertained from the
contract itself. Howell v. C.M. Allen & Co.
, 8 N.C. App. 287,
289, 174 S.E.2d 55, 56 (1970).
Here, the language of the employment agreement is clear and
unambiguous - petitioner is to be paid in twelve monthlyinstallments for his service as a nine-month, academic year,
tenured faculty member.
The two terms relied upon by NCSU
(See footnote 1)
were not expressly included
in the employment agreement. Dr. Turinsky, head of petitioner's
department, testified that petitioner's written employment
agreement is comprised of terms found in petitioner's appointment
letter, annual salary letter, and written policies adopted and
amended by the UNC Board of Governors and the NCSU Board of
(See footnote 2)
However, none of these documents forming the employment
agreement set forth the compensation policies upon which NCSU basesits claim.
(See footnote 3)
Simet, Director of NCSU's Payroll Department, admitted
at the agency hearing that the policies were not stated anywhere
Further, Dr. Turinsky testified he did not know of
the existence of the terms until September 2001, after petitioner
left his employment with NCSU. NCSU, however, attempts to offer
parol evidence to explain that payments made in July and August
2001 were pre-payments for the following academic year.
The parol evidence rule prohibits the admission of parol
evidence to vary, add to, or contradict a written instrument
intended to be the final integration of the transaction. Hall v.
Hotel L'Europe, Inc.
, 69 N.C. App. 664, 666, 318 S.E.2d 99, 101
(1984). 'The rule is otherwise where it is shown that the writing
is not a full integration of the terms of the contract,' Vestal v.
, 49 N.C. App. 263, 266, 271 S.E.2d 306, 308 (1980) (citation
omitted), or [w]hen a contract is ambiguous, parol evidence is
admissible to show and make certain the intention behind the
contract, Dockery v. Quality Plastic Custom Molding, Inc
N.C. App. 419, 422, 547 S.E.2d 850, 852-53 (2001).
Here Dr. Turinsky testified that petitioner's employment
agreement consisted only of petitioner's appointment letter, his
annual salary letter, and the policies adopted and amended by the
UNC Board of Governors and by the NCSU Board of Trustees. It
therefore appears the parties intended the above documents to be
the final integration of the employment agreement. Additionally,we have already noted the language contained in the documents are
unambiguous; thus, parol evidence may not be introduced to explain
the terms of the agreement.
We hold petitioner does not owe a debt to NCSU as result of an
alleged overpayment of salary. It is therefore unnecessary to
address whether the superior court properly determined whether the
principle of estoppel applied. This assignment of error is
II. Petitioner's Cross-Appeal
 In its 10 April 2002 letter to petitioner, NCSU stated
that it had garnished petitioner's state income tax refund pursuant
to the Setoff Debt Collection Act (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105A) (SODCA).
SODCA authorizes garnishment when a person owes a debt to a state
N.C.G.S. §§ 105A-2 and 105A-3 (2003). If, however, a
decision finds that a State agency is not entitled to any part of
an amount set off, the agency must send the taxpayer the entire
amount set off plus the collection assistance fee retained by the
N.C.G.S. § 105A-8(d)(2003).
We hold the superior court committed error in failing to order
NCSU to return the tax refund garnished from petitioner. We have
held petitioner does not owe a debt to NCSU. We further hold that
the superior court committed error in failing to order NCSU to
return the check petitioner tendered to NCSU in December 2001. As
with the tax refund, this amount was erroneously applied by NCSU to
the payroll debt alleged by NCSU. Accordingly, we reverse the
order of the superior court as pertains to retention of the tax
refund and check tendered as a settlement offer. Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
Judge MCGEE concurs.
Judge HUNTER dissents in a separate opinion.
HUNTER, Judge dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion, as the terms
of the employment agreement were sufficient to permit collection of
the overpayment found by both the trial court and the
administrative law judge. Having so concluded, I would reverse the
portion of the trial court's order that estopped respondent from
collection of the overpayment, and affirm the portion of the order
allowing respondent to retain funds already collected towards the
Petitioner alleges, and the majority agrees, that respondent
is prevented from collecting the overpayment in salary made in July
and August of 2001 under the terms of the contract. The majority
concludes that as the specifics of the fiscal year were not
explicitly set out in the faculty handbook, so as to indicate that
such payments were in fact prepayments for the upcoming academic
year, the contract fails for lack of certainty.
As the majority correctly notes, personal service contracts
are enforceable if certain as to the nature and extent of the
services to be performed, the place where and the person to whom
services are to be rendered, and the compensation to be paid.
Humphrey v. Hill, 55 N.C. App. 359, 361, 285 S.E.2d 293, 295
(1982). Such certainty does not, however, require intricacy of
detail to enforce an employment contract. The specifics of whereand when the services were to be performed, the nature of the
services and how compensation was to be made do not make the
contract fail for lack of certainty[.] Humphrey, 55 N.C. App. at
361, 285 S.E.2d at 295 (emphasis added).
Here, however, sufficient evidence is present in the record to
find with certainty the terms of petitioner's compensation.
Expressly included in his employment agreement were petitioner's
yearly salary increase letters. Each of these letters, sent in
August, September, or October after the academic year began, stated
that petitioner's salary increase for that academic year would be
retroactive to 1 July of the respective year. Petitioner's last
salary increase letter for the academic year in question, dated 14
August 2000, stated that once approved by the Board of Governors,
petitioner would receive an increase of 5.6%, resulting in a 2000-
2001 salary of $71,719[,] and that [s]alary increases would then
be reflected in the August 2000 paychecks, retroactive to July 1,
2000. In conjunction with the terms of the faculty handbook,
which stated that academic-year (9-month) appointments are payable
in 12 equal monthly installments[,] this letter provided
petitioner notice that his salary for the 2000-2001 academic year
would be paid in full as of June 2001, when the twelve monthly
installments begun in July 2000 were complete. The terms of the
contract for petitioner's employment for the academic term were
therefore certain enough to permit enforcement.
(See footnote 4)
Respondent contends that payments made to petitioner in July
and August were due to a mistake of fact, and are therefore
recoverable. Our courts have held that 'money paid to another
under the influence of a mistake of fact . . . may be recovered,
provided the payment has not caused such a change in the position
of the payee that it would be unjust to require a refund.' Bank
v. McManus, 29 N.C. App. 65, 70, 223 S.E.2d 554, 557 (1976)
(citations omitted). This rule is bottomed on the equitable
doctrine that an action will lie for the recovery of money received
by one to whom it does not in good conscience belong, the law
presuming a promise to pay. Guaranty Co. v. Reagan, 256 N.C. 1,
9, 122 S.E.2d 774, 780 (1961). As our Supreme Court noted in
Guaranty Co., '[a]s a general rule, it is no defense to an action
for the recovery of a payment made under mistake of fact that the
money or property has been paid over to another or spent by the
payee.' Guaranty Co., 256 N.C. at 10, 122 S.E.2d at 781 (citation
Here, it is uncontested that petitioner resigned from
respondent in August 2001 and served only a two-week period of the
2001-2002 academic year in August. Further, although petitioner
notified his supervisor of his intent to resign in July 2001, his
supervisor did not inform the payroll division until after
petitioner's actual separation from respondent. As a result,
petitioner was paid two months salary in July and August of 2001.
Based on the evidence presented, the administrative law judgeconcluded:
[W]hen Dr. Mayo resigned his position with the
University on August 31, 2001, he had been
paid his annual rate of salary for July and
August 2001, which was a prepayment for work
to be performed for the upcoming academic
year, which began on August 16, 2001. Dr.
Mayo was only due compensation for the twelve
workdays in the Fall Semester for the period
beginning August 16, 2001 through August 31,
My determination is that the debt owed to the
[U]niversity by Dr. Mayo for overpayment of
salary is valid.
The trial court affirmed the finding of overpayment, stating that:
Under the undisputed facts of this case, the University is
estopped to claim the overpayment of salary as a debt to the
State. (Emphasis added.)
A review of the whole record for competent evidence, as
required under the appropriate standard of review, see Capital
Outdoor, Inc. v. Guilford Cty. Bd. of Adjust., 152 N.C. App. 474,
475, 567 S.E.2d 440, 441 (2002), supports the finding of an
overpayment made by both the administrative law judge and trial
court. Petitioner's supervisor testified he was unaware of the
prepayment policy and had delayed reporting petitioner's
resignation for internal departmental reasons related to graduate
students within the program. As a result, payroll was not informed
of petitioner's separation from respondent until after petitioner
officially left on 31 August 2001. Payroll had began prepaying
petitioner his 2001-2002 salary, as specified in the faculty
handbook, under the mistaken belief that petitioner would be
continuing as a faculty member in the upcoming academic year.
Further, petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence thatrecovery of the overpayment had caused him to change his position
to such an extent that recovery would be unjust, arguing at the
administrative hearing only that it was a penalty to require
repayment of money which was already spent. This provides no
defense to respondent's action. See Guaranty Co., 256 N.C. at 10,
122 S.E.2d at 781.
Therefore, unlike the majority, I would find that petitioner's
contract with respondent was enforceable. As a result, an
uncontested mistake of fact, as shown by respondent, as to payment
under the terms of the contract created a recoverable debt. As
petitioner did not demonstrate that such recovery would be unjust,
the administrative law judge properly found that respondent could
collect the debt created by the mistake of fact.
Petitioner contends that the trial court correctly ruled that
collection of the overpayment was barred by estoppel. I disagree.
The essential elements of estoppel are
(1) conduct on the part of the party sought to
be estopped which amounts to a false
representation or concealment of material
facts; (2) the intention that such conduct
will be acted on by the other party; and (3)
knowledge, actual or constructive, of the real
State ex rel. Easley v. Rich Food Servs., Inc., 139 N.C. App. 691,
703, 535 S.E.2d 84, 92 (2000). Although our courts have found that
[a] governmental agency is not subject to an estoppel claim to the
same extent as an individual or a private corporation[,] Kings
Mountain Bd. of Educ. v. N.C. State Bd. of Educ., 159 N.C. App.
568, 577, 583 S.E.2d 629, 636 (2003), here, even under the lower
standard applied to a private corporation, the essential elements
of estoppel are not present. In this case, no evidence has been presented that respondent
made a false representation to petitioner to induce his reliance on
the overpayments. Rather, as discussed supra, the evidence
presented at the hearing showed that there was a mutual mistake, as
both petitioner's supervisor and petitioner were unaware at the
time of petitioner's resignation that continued payments would
result in overpayment. Thus, respondent's actions demonstrate a
regrettable misunderstanding rather than an attempt to induce
petitioner's reliance on the actions. Therefore, the trial court
erred in concluding estoppel barred respondent from collecting the
debt created by the overpayment.
Finally, I would affirm the trial court's holding that
respondent had no obligation to return either the money garnished
from petitioner's income tax return or petitioner's voluntary
payment towards his debt. The North Carolina Constitution mandates
that [n]o person or set of persons is entitled to exclusive or
separate emoluments or privileges from the community but in
consideration of public services. N.C. Const. art. I, § 32. Our
courts have construed this provision to prevent gifts or gratuities
of public money and have held that additional compensation . . .
beyond that due for services rendered is not constitutionally
permissible. Leete v. County of Warren, 341 N.C. 116, 121, 462
S.E.2d 476, 479 (1995). Further, our statutes require that money
due to a state agency, including overpayments, must be promptly
billed, collected and deposited. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 147-
86.11(e)(3) (2003), see also N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 147-86.21 and 147-
86.20 (2003). As respondent had both a constitutional andstatutory obligation to recoup the overpayment of salary to
petitioner, the trial court correctly found that retention of funds
already collected was proper.
For the above reasons, I respectfully dissent from the
majority and would reverse the portion of the trial court's order
estopping respondent from collection of the overpayment, and affirm
the portion of the order permitting respondent to retain such
monies as have already been collected.
Those terms include first, the July and first half of August
salary payments to a nine-month employee are pre-payments for the
upcoming academic year. Second, when a nine-month employee, who is
paid on a twelve-month basis, leaves prior to commencement of the
upcoming fall academic year
, that employee must repay the amount of
In addition, the record reflects an offer of appointment
letter sent from NCSU to petitioner dated 8 January 1990 which
stated: A copy of the faculty handbook with tenure regulations
that govern your appointment was provided to you during your recent
Via letter dated 10 January 1991, petitioner accepted
NCSU's offer of appointment stating: I hereby agree to the terms
and conditions put forth in your letter of 8 Jan. 1991.
The record contained an appointment letter dated 25 February 1991
which stated: Your employment is subject to all policies adopted
and amended by the UNC Board of Governors and by the NCSU Board of
Trustees. Pertinent sections of the UNC Code are printed in the
Faculty Handbook along with the text of or reference to other
Finally, the record contained an appointment letter dated 19 May
1997 which stated: Your appointment is subject to all policies
adopted and amended by the UNC Board of Governors and by the N.C.
State University Board of Trustees.
Accordingly, we conclude the written policies adopted and amended
by the UNC Board of Governors and the NCSU Board of Trustees were
adopted by reference into the employment agreement; and these
documents in addition to the appointment letter constituted a full
integration of the employment agreement.
In addition, during oral arguments before this Court, counsel
for NCSU conceded that none of the documents comprising
petitioner's employment agreement, specifically stated that NCSU's
fiscal year was 1 July through 30 June.
We note that although some issues were raised in the
administrative law hearing regarding petitioner's work as director
of graduate admissions during July and August 2001, the evidence of
record demonstrated that petitioner was paid in full the agreedupon compensation for that additional duty in May and June of 2001,
and that the issue of overpayment is solely with regards to
petitioner's salary for his academic appointment.
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***