IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. 218A22

Filed 22 March 2024

JOHN SLATTERY

v.

APPY CITY, LLC; TIMOTHY S. FIELDS; MELISSA CRETE; and DAISY MAE

FOWLER

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-27(a)(2) from an order and opinion on a 

post-trial motion entered on 16 February 2022 by Judge Michael L. Robinson, Special 

Superior Court Judge for Complex Business Cases, in Superior Court, Wake County, 

after the case was designated a mandatory complex business case by the Chief Justice 

pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-45.4(b). Heard in the Supreme Court on 19 September 

2023.

Hamilton Stephens Steele Martin, PLLC, by M. Aaron Lay, for 

plaintiff-appellee/cross-appellant, John Slattery.

Wilson Ratledge, PLLC, by Reginald B. Gillespie, Jr., for 

defendant-appellant/cross-appellee, Daisy Mae Barber.

NEWBY, Chief Justice.

In this case we consider whether a person who files a motion to claim exempt 

property after a judgment is entered makes a general appearance in the action and 

thereby waives objections to the sufficiency of service of process and personal 

jurisdiction. When a defendant makes a general appearance in an action without 

contesting personal jurisdiction or the sufficiency of service of process, she waives 
SLATTERY V. APPY CITY, LLC

Opinion of the Court

-2-

those objections. We conclude that defendant made a general appearance in the action

when she moved to claim exempt property. In so doing, she waived her objections to 

the sufficiency of service of process and lack of personal jurisdiction. Accordingly, the 

Business Court’s order is affirmed.

On 11 September 2019, plaintiff commenced this action against Timothy Fields 

and Melissa Crete, and it was designated as a mandatory complex business case 

pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-45.4(a). Plaintiff’s complaint alleged that Fields and Crete

induced him to invest $500,000 in a sham technology company called “Appy City.” On 

7 February 2020, plaintiff filed an amended complaint naming Daisy Mae Barber1

and Pamela Bowman2 as additional defendants, alleging they conspired with Fields 

and Crete to hide the invested funds by converting them into cryptocurrency. 

On 10 February 2020, the Business Court issued a civil summons for 

defendant. Plaintiff’s counsel submitted an affidavit stating he deposited the 

summons and amended complaint (i.e., the process) with Federal Express (FedEx) on 

17 February 2020 to be delivered to defendant at “618 Mills Road” in Aberdeen, North 

Carolina.3 Plaintiff provided a proof-of-delivery form from FedEx showing that the 

1 Although this case’s caption refers to defendant as “Daisy Mae Fowler,” she is 

referred to by several surnames throughout the record, including “Fowler,” “Barber,” 

“Johnson,” “Linn,” and “Fields.” Throughout the opinion, we simply refer to her as 

“defendant.”

2 Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed without prejudice his claims against Bowman on 20 

November 2020.

3 According to an affidavit provided by defendant, her address during February of 

2020 was “618 Rays Mill Road.”
SLATTERY V. APPY CITY, LLC

Opinion of the Court

-3-

process was delivered on 19 February 2020 to a FedEx location at a Walgreens

Pharmacy located at 1706 North Sandhills Boulevard in Aberdeen, North Carolina, 

which was near defendant’s home. The proof of delivery showed the process was

signed for by a “D. Barber” and that the signatory signed for the package using the 

initials “D.B.” Defendant, however, did not file an answer or otherwise respond to the 

complaint. 

Based on the evidence presented by plaintiff, the Business Court concluded 

that plaintiff sufficiently served process on defendant. Because defendant neither

answered nor otherwise responded, the Business Court entered default against her

pursuant to Rule 55(a) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure on 28 July 

2020.

4

On 24 September 2020, plaintiff moved for summary judgment on all claims, 

including those levied against defendant. Defendants did not respond to plaintiff’s

motion for summary judgment, nor did they appear, personally or through counsel,

at the summary judgment hearing on 17 November 2020. On 24 March 2021, the 

Business Court awarded plaintiff summary judgment against all defendants on all 

but three claims. 

4 Similarly, none of the other defendants responded, and default was entered against 

them as well.
SLATTERY V. APPY CITY, LLC

Opinion of the Court

-4-

On 4 June 2021, to enforce the judgment, plaintiff served a notice of right to 

claim exemptions on defendant at a new address.

5 On 23 June 2021, defendant

appeared for the first time and moved to claim exempt property pursuant to N.C.G.S. 

§ 1C-1603. Her motion did not contest personal jurisdiction or the sufficiency of 

service of process. 

More than three months later, on 4 October 2021, defendant moved the 

Business Court to set aside the entries of default and summary judgment pursuant 

to Rules 55 and 60 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. She argued the 

Business Court’s judgment was void for lack of personal jurisdiction because she had 

not been served with process nor appeared in the action before the entry of summary

judgment. She also argued that good cause existed to set aside the judgment and that

she had a meritorious defense.

On 9 February 2022, the Business Court held a hearing on defendant’s motion 

to set aside the entries of default and summary judgment. After consideration of all 

the parties’ filings, the Business Court entered an order denying defendant’s motion

on 16 February 2022. The Business Court first found “that [plaintiff] . . . failed to 

adequately demonstrate that [d]efendant . . . was served with the [s]ummons and 

[a]mended [c]omplaint in this action.” Relying on the Court of Appeals’ decision in

Faucette v. Dickerson, 103 N.C. App. 620, 406 S.E.2d 602 (1991), and its progeny,

5 According to defendant’s affidavit, by the early spring of 2021, defendant’s residence 

was 260 Stephanie Street in Southern Pines, North Carolina.
SLATTERY V. APPY CITY, LLC

Opinion of the Court

-5-

however, the Business Court determined that defendant made a general appearance

in the action when she moved to claim exempt property. It therefore concluded that 

defendant waived her objections to personal jurisdiction and the sufficiency of service 

of process. To the extent that defendant relied on the insufficiency of service of process 

for her Rule 60(b)(4) and Rule 60(b)(6) arguments, the Business Court denied 

defendant’s motion. The Business Court then, in its discretion, declined to “reach the 

substance” of any of defendant’s remaining Rule 60(b) arguments. Defendant

appealed directly to this Court. N.C.G.S. § 7A-27(a)(2) (2021). Plaintiff filed a notice 

of cross-appeal.

The question before us is whether making a general appearance after the entry 

of a judgment is a general appearance in the underlying action that waives objections 

to personal jurisdiction and the sufficiency of service of process. This question 

presents a matter of law, which we review de novo. Da Silva v. WakeMed, 375 N.C. 

1, 5, 846 S.E.2d 634, 638 (2020). Regarding the Business Court’s denial of defendant’s

Rule 60(b) motions, we review for abuse of discretion.6 Davis v. Davis, 360 N.C. 518, 

523, 631 S.E.2d 114, 118 (2006). An error of law constitutes an abuse of discretion. 

Da Silva, 375 N.C. at 5 n.2, 846 S.E.2d at 638 n.2.

Rule 60(b)(4) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure permits a court to 

set aside a judgment upon a party’s motion if the judgment is void. N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, 

6 Although defendant’s briefs mention Rule 55(d) in passing, her arguments focus 

exclusively on Rule 60(b). As such, we conduct our analysis under that rule.
SLATTERY V. APPY CITY, LLC

Opinion of the Court

-6-

Rule 60(b)(4) (2021) (“On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may

relieve a party . . . from a final judgment . . . [if] [t]he judgment is void . . . .”) 

(emphasis added)). To render a valid judgment, a court must have jurisdiction over 

the subject matter of the case (subject matter jurisdiction) and jurisdiction over the 

parties to the case (personal jurisdiction).7 N.C.G.S. § 1-75.3(b) (2021).

Subject matter jurisdiction is the “power to pass on the merits of [a] case.” 

Boyles v. Boyles, 308 N.C. 488, 491, 302 S.E.2d 790, 793 (1983). Without it, a court’s 

actions are absolutely void. In re T.R.P., 360 N.C. 588, 590, 636 S.E.2d 787, 790 (2006)

(characterizing subject matter jurisdiction as “the indispensable foundation upon 

which valid judicial decisions rest”). Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred upon 

courts by law and operates as a structural limitation on the power of courts. See N.C. 

Const. art. IV, §§ 1, 12. We have consequently held that “[t]he existence of subject 

matter jurisdiction is a matter of law and cannot be conferred upon a court by 

consent.” In re K.J.L., 363 N.C. 343, 345–46, 677 S.E.2d 835, 837 (2009) (internal 

quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re T.R.P., 360 N.C. at 595, 636 S.E.2d at 793). 

For this reason, “a court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not waivable and can 

be raised at any time.” Id. at 346, 677 S.E.2d at 837 (emphasis added). And

“[w]henever it appears . . . that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the 

7 Defendant does not contend the Business Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. 

Instead, her appeal turns on the sufficiency of service of process, which implicates personal 

jurisdiction. See In re K.J.L., 363 N.C. 343, 346–47, 677 S.E.2d 835, 837–38 (2009).
SLATTERY V. APPY CITY, LLC

Opinion of the Court

-7-

court shall dismiss the action.” N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 12(h)(3) (2021) (emphases 

added)).

Conversely, personal jurisdiction is “a court’s authority to require an 

individual to appear in the forum and defend an action brought against the individual 

in that forum.” In re F.S.T.Y., 374 N.C. 532, 534, 843 S.E.2d 160, 162 (2020). 

Generally, a court asserts personal jurisdiction over a defendant through “service of 

process”—that is, the defendant being served with the summons and complaint. In re 

K.J.L., 363 N.C. at 346–47, 677 S.E.2d at 837–38; see also N.C.G.S. § 1-75.6 (2021) 

(“A court of this State . . . may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant by 

service of process in accordance with . . . the Rules of Civil Procedure.”). A court may 

also exercise personal jurisdiction through a defendant’s general (or “voluntary”) 

appearance or consent. Grimsley v. Nelson, 342 N.C. 542, 545, 467 S.E.2d 92, 94 

(1996). Our General Statutes specifically permit a court to assert personal 

jurisdiction over a defendant “[w]ho makes a general appearance in an action” even 

“without serving a summons upon [her].” N.C.G.S. § 1-75.7(1) (2021).

A defendant makes a general appearance when she appears before a court and 

submits to its adjudicatory power without objecting to its jurisdiction over her. See

Lynch v. Lynch, 302 N.C. 189, 197, 274 S.E.2d 212, 219 (1981). Stated differently, a 

general appearance is an appearance whereby the defendant “invokes the judgment

of the court in any manner on any question other than that of [personal] jurisdiction,”

id. (quoting In re Blalock, 233 N.C. 493, 504, 64 S.E.2d 848, 856 (1951)), and “requests 
SLATTERY V. APPY CITY, LLC

Opinion of the Court

-8-

[the court’s] affirmative intervention [o]n [her] behalf,” Simms v. Mason’s Stores, Inc. 

(NC-1), 285 N.C. 145, 157, 203 S.E.2d 769, 777 (1974), superseded on other grounds

by statute, An Act to Amend G.S. 1-75.7 and G.S. 1A-1, Rule 12, to Provide That 

Obtaining an Extension of Time Within Which to Answer or Otherwise Plead Shall 

Not Be Considered a General Appearance and Shall Not Constitute a Waiver of Any 

Defense Set Forth in Rule 12(b), ch. 76, 1975 N.C. Sess. Laws 48, 48–49 (codified as 

amended at N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 12(b)); see also Faucette, 103 N.C. App. at 623–24, 

406 S.E.2d at 605 (“The concept of a general appearance should be given a liberal 

interpretation. Virtually any action other than a motion to dismiss for lack of 

jurisdiction constitutes a general appearance in a court having subject matter 

jurisdiction.” (internal punctuation and alterations omitted) (citations omitted)).

Unlike subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction is a personal 

protection for a defendant. In re K.J.L., 363 N.C. at 346–47, 677 S.E.2d at 837–38. 

Therefore, “[d]eficiencies regarding the manner in which a court obtains jurisdiction 

over a party, including those relating to a summons, are waivable and must be raised 

in a timely manner.” Id. at 346, 677 S.E.2d at 837. Specifically, Rule 12 explains that 

“[a] defense of lack of jurisdiction over the person . . . or insufficiency of service of 

process is waived . . . if it is neither made by motion under this rule nor included in a 

responsive pleading or an amendment thereof . . . .” N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 12(h)(1). 

In summary, to timely assert a claim of insufficient service of process or lack of 

personal jurisdiction under the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, a defendant 
SLATTERY V. APPY CITY, LLC

Opinion of the Court

-9-

must assert those defenses at her first filing with the court, or she waives them. See

Simms, 285 N.C. at 153, 203 S.E.2d at 775 (construing Rules 12(b)(2)–(5), (g), and 

(h)(1) together); Lynch, 302 N.C. at 197–98, 274 S.E.2d at 219.

Thus, if a defendant makes a general appearance without objecting to personal 

jurisdiction or the sufficiency of service of process, those defenses are waived, and the 

court may properly exercise personal jurisdiction. Simms, 285 N.C. at 157, 203 S.E.2d 

at 777 (harmonizing Rule 12 and N.C.G.S. § 1-75.7); Lynch, 302 N.C. at 197, 274 

S.E.2d at 219 (“[A]ny act which constitutes a general appearance obviates the 

necessity of service of summons and waives the right to challenge the court’s exercise 

of personal jurisdiction over the party making the general appearance.”); see also In 

re A.L.I., 380 N.C. 697, 701, 869 S.E.2d 704, 707 (2022) (“[P]articipat[ion] in . . . 

proceedings without raising an objection to the trial court exercising personal 

jurisdiction . . . waives any argument of insufficient service of process.”).

In this way, lack of personal jurisdiction renders a court’s actions voidable

rather than void, and it is incumbent upon the defendant to preserve her objections

by raising them at the first available opportunity. See Voidable, Black’s Law 

Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (defining “voidable” as “[v]alid until annulled” and 

“capable of being affirmed or rejected at the option of one of the parties”). Thus, if a

defendant moves to invalidate the court’s judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction

at her first appearance in the action, the issue is preserved for review. And if the 

defendant’s challenge prevails, the trial court may, in its discretion, set aside the void 
SLATTERY V. APPY CITY, LLC

Opinion of the Court

-10-

judgment. N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 60(b)(4).

In this case, however, we are confronted with a defendant whose first 

appearance was a motion to claim exempt property wherein she did not object to 

personal jurisdiction or the sufficiency of service of process. We must determine 

whether that appearance waived her objections to personal jurisdiction and the 

sufficiency of service of process although it occurred after entry of the judgment. For 

our review, we assume, without deciding, that the Business Court correctly 

determined that plaintiff did not sufficiently serve process on defendant. Accordingly, 

we assume that, at the time it entered the judgment, the Business Court lacked 

personal jurisdiction over defendant and that, therefore, the defense was available to 

her.

The precise question we must answer is, by filing a motion to claim exempt 

property, did defendant make a general appearance in the underlying action? In other 

words, if defendant made a general appearance during the proceeding to enforce the 

judgment, is the general appearance “in [the] action”? N.C.G.S. § 1-75.7(1). Plaintiff

argues that defendant made a general appearance in the action when she became 

aware of the judgment and appeared for the first time by moving to claim exempt 

property pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 1C-1603. We agree. By asking the Business Court to 

designate certain property as exempt from the judgment, defendant “invoke[d] the 

jurisdiction of the court and request[ed] its affirmative intervention [on her] behalf,”

submitting herself to the Business Court’s adjudicatory power. Simms, 285 N.C. at 
SLATTERY V. APPY CITY, LLC

Opinion of the Court

-11-

157, 203 S.E.2d at 777. She did not simultaneously object, however, to the Business 

Court’s personal jurisdiction. She therefore made a general appearance. See Lynch, 

302 N.C. at 197, 274 S.E.2d at 219; see also Faucette, 103 N.C. App. at 624, 406 S.E.2d 

at 605 (concluding a motion to claim exempt property was a general appearance). 

Moreover, defendant’s general appearance was “in the action” because the judgment 

collection process is simply a continuation of the underlying action. See N.C.G.S. 

§§ 1-302 to -324.7, -352 (2021) (governing execution of judgments). Therefore, 

defendant made a general appearance in the action.

Our decision that defendant made a general appearance in the underlying 

action is informed by the Court of Appeals’ thirty-three-year-old decision in Faucette 

v. Dickerson, which presented facts similar to the current case.

8 There the Court of 

Appeals held a general appearance made after the entry of a judgment waives 

objections to personal jurisdiction and the sufficiency of service of process such that 

the judgment may be enforced. Faucette, 103 N.C. App. at 624, 406 S.E.2d at 605. We 

agree.

In Faucette, the trial court entered default judgment against the defendant and 

issued her a notice of right to claim exemptions. 103 N.C. App. at 621, 406 S.E.2d at 

603. The defendant submitted a motion to claim exempt property. Id. Sometime 

8 Notably, the Court of Appeals panel in Faucette included two future associate justices 

of this Court: Robert Orr and James Wynn. Faucette, 103 N.C. App. at 622, 624, 406 S.E.2d 

at 604–05.
SLATTERY V. APPY CITY, LLC

Opinion of the Court

-12-

thereafter, she filed a motion to set aside the default judgment for insufficient service 

of process, which the trial court dismissed. Id. at 621, 623, 406 S.E.2d at 603–04. The 

Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed, reasoning that when “the defendant by 

motion or otherwise invokes the adjudicatory powers of the court in any other matter 

not directly related to the questions of jurisdiction, [s]he has made a general 

appearance and has submitted [her]self to the jurisdiction of the court whether [s]he 

intended to or not.” Id. at 624, 406 S.E.2d at 605 (quoting Swenson v. Thibaut, 39 

N.C. App. 77, 89, 250 S.E.2d 279, 288 (1978)). Relying on N.C.G.S. § 1-75.7, the Court 

of Appeals held that the defendant’s motion to claim exempt property was a general 

appearance that waived her objections to personal jurisdiction and the sufficiency of 

service of process. Id. at 623–24, 406 S.E.2d at 605 (stating the defendant’s “motion 

to claim exempt property . . . was inconsistent with her later motion for relief from 

judgment on the grounds of the invalidity of service of process”).9

We adopt Faucette’s reasoning and hold that when a defendant makes a 

9 The Faucette decision has been relied upon by subsequent Court of Appeals opinions. 

See MedStaff Carolinas, LLC v. Northwood Nursing Ctr., Inc., No. 04-1281, slip op. at 7 (N.C. 

Ct. App. Aug. 16, 2008) (unpublished) (observing that the defendant “appropriate[ly]” 

abandoned his personal jurisdiction defense when he had moved to claim exempt property 

before moving to vacate the judgment because Faucette had “conclusively answered the issue

[of whether the trial court had personal jurisdiction] against [him]”); State v. Williams, No. 

13-47, slip op. at 7–8 (N.C. Ct. App. Oct. 15, 2013) (unpublished) (“[A]lthough the filing of a 

proper complaint is required to vest the trial court with subject matter jurisdiction under the 

Rules of Civil Procedure, the defenses of insufficiency of process and insufficiency of service 

of process may be waived, and, therefore, do not impact subject matter jurisdiction.” (first 

citing Estate of Livesay v. Livesay, 219 N.C. App. 183, 185–86, 723 S.E.2d 772, 774 (2019); 

then citing City of Charlotte v. Noles, 143 N.C. App. 181, 183, 544 S.E.2d 585, 586 (2001); and 

then citing Faucette, 103 N.C. App. at 623, 406 S.E.2d at 605)).
SLATTERY V. APPY CITY, LLC

Opinion of the Court

-13-

general appearance in an action after the entry of a judgment, she waives any 

objections to the lack of personal jurisdiction or the sufficiency of service of process if 

she does not raise those objections at that time. Under such circumstances, the 

judgment may be enforced notwithstanding subsequent attempts to invalidate the 

judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction.

10 When a defendant’s first appearance is 

10 We pause to observe that, although the dissent cites several decisions of this Court 

and the Supreme Court of the United States to arrive at its conclusion that a post-judgment 

general appearance does not validate a judgment rendered when the court was without 

personal jurisdiction, none of the cases cited by the dissent confronted the procedural posture 

presented in this case. Rather, in the cases cited by the dissent, this Court (or the Supreme 

Court of the United States) faced either special appearances before the judgment, Vick v. 

Flournoy, 147 N.C. 209, 212, 60 S.E. 978, 979 (1908); collateral attacks on the validity of a 

judgment, see Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 719–20 (1877), overruled on other grounds by

Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 97 S. Ct. 2569 (1977); Card v. Finch, 142 N.C. 140, 140–43, 

54 S.E. 1009, 1009–10 (1906); Stafford v. Gallops, 123 N.C. 19, 20–21, 31 S.E. 265, 266 (1898); 

Doyle v. Brown, 72 N.C. 393, 393 (1875); Burke v. Elliott, 26 N.C. (4 Ired.) 355, 355–58 (1844);

or cases where the defendant’s very first action was to attack the validity of the judgment, see

Harris v. Hardeman, 55 U.S. (14 How.) 334, 335–36 (1852); Guthrie v. Ray, 293 N.C. 67, 68, 

235 S.E.2d 146, 147 (1977); N. State Fin. Co. v. Leonard, 263 N.C. 167, 168, 139 S.E.2d 356, 

357 (1964); Harrington v. Rice, 245 N.C. 640, 641, 97 S.E.2d 239, 240 (1957); Bd. of Comm’rs 

v. Bumpass, 233 N.C. 190, 192, 63 S.E.2d 144, 145–46 (1951); City of Monroe v. Niven, 221 

N.C. 362, 363, 20 S.E.2d 311, 311–12 (1942); Guerin v. Guerin, 208 N.C. 457, 458–59, 181 

S.E. 274, 275 (1935); Harrell v. Welstead, 206 N.C. 817, 818, 175 S.E 283, 283 (1934); 

Simmons v. Defiance Box Co., 148 N.C. 344, 344–45, 62 S.E. 435, 435 (1908); Harrison v. 

Harrison, 106 N.C. 282, 283, 11 S.E. 356, 357 (1890); Stancill v. Gay, 92 N.C. 455, 455–57, 

463 (1885); Armstrong v. Harshaw, 12 N.C. (1 Dev.) 187, 187–88 (1827); Macher v. Macher, 

188 N.C. App. 537, 539, 656 S.E.2d 282, 283 (2008), aff’d, 362 N.C. 505, 666 S.E.2d 750 (2008)

(per curiam); cf. In re K.J.L., 363 N.C. at 344–45, 677 S.E.2d at 836–37 (challenging subject 

matter jurisdiction in appeal from judgment). In the circumstances presented in these prior 

cases, a judgment obtained without service of process may be rightfully declared void, and as 

a result, the affected party can assert that the judgment has no force and effect. This case, 

by contrast, did not involve a collateral attack, and defendant’s first action was not to attack 

the validity of the judgment. Rather, defendant first appeared in the same proceeding to 

claim exempt property, availing herself of our state’s laws to resist enforcement of the 

judgment. As such, the defect to the judgment was waived.

Moreover, we note that nearly all of the cases cited by the dissent on this point 

predated the adoption of our modern North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, see An Act to 

Amend the Laws Relating to Civil Procedure, ch. 954, 1967 N.C. Sess. Laws 1274–1354
SLATTERY V. APPY CITY, LLC

Opinion of the Court

-14-

to move to claim exempt property, it is fair and not unduly burdensome to require a 

defendant to raise any objections to the judgment that she may have at that time.

Here, as we have said, defendant made a general appearance in the action 

when she moved to claim exempt property. She did not, however, object to personal 

jurisdiction or the sufficiency of service of process until over three months later. 

Because defendant did not raise her objections when she moved to claim exempt 

property, she waived them, and the Business Court’s judgment may be enforced.

Defendant relies on a contrary line of Court of Appeals cases, specifically Dowd 

v. Johnson, 235 N.C. App. 6, 12, 760 S.E.2d 79, 84 (2014). She maintains that a 

general appearance made after the entry of a judgment by a court that lacked

personal jurisdiction cannot retroactively render the judgment enforceable. Her 

argument is unavailing for several reasons.

At the outset, her reliance on Dowd is misplaced. In Dowd, the Court of 

Appeals stated that to waive objections to personal jurisdiction and the sufficiency of 

service of process, a general appearance must occur before the entry of a judgment. 

Id. For this proposition, the court in Dowd relied on an earlier decision of the Court 

of Appeals: Barnes v. Wells, 165 N.C. App. 575, 579–80, 599 S.E.2d 585, 589–90 (2004)

(finding that the general-appearance cases cited by the petitioner were “inapplicable 

because [the] respondent never made a general appearance before entry of the final 

(codified at N.C.G.S. §§ 1-75.1 to -75.12; 1A-1, Rules 1–44, 45–65, 68–68.1, 70, 84), which we 

have explained recognizes the nuances of void versus voidable judgments.
SLATTERY V. APPY CITY, LLC

Opinion of the Court

-15-

order”). Although decided after Faucette, both Barnes and Dowd failed to account for 

Faucette’s explicit holding that a general appearance after entry of a judgment waives

objections to personal jurisdiction and the sufficiency of service of process. Therefore, 

the Barnes-Dowd line of cases misapplied the Court of Appeals’ own precedent in 

contravention of In re Appeal from Civil Penalty Assessed for Violations of the 

Sedimentary Pollution Control Act, 324 N.C. 373, 384, 379 S.E.2d 30, 37 (1989)

(“Where a panel of the Court of Appeals has decided the same issue, albeit in a 

different case, a subsequent panel of the same court is bound by that precedent, 

unless it has been overturned by a higher court.”). Insofar as Barnes and Dowd

suggest that a general appearance must be made before the entry of the judgment to

waive objections to personal jurisdiction and the sufficiency of service of process, they 

are hereby expressly overruled.

Additionally, our decision more appropriately adheres to the modern 

distinction between subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction. As we have 

explained, when a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, its actions are void, and 

objections thereto cannot be waived. When the court lacks personal jurisdiction, 

however, its actions are merely voidable. The defendant must therefore attack the 

action’s validity at the first available opportunity; otherwise, the objection is waived. 

Compare In re K.J.L., 363 N.C. at 345–46, 677 S.E.2d at 837 (“The existence of subject 

matter jurisdiction is a matter of law[,] and . . . . a court’s lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction is not waivable and can be raised at any time.” (emphasis added)
SLATTERY V. APPY CITY, LLC

Opinion of the Court

-16-

(citations omitted)), with id. at 346–47, 677 S.E.2d at 837–38 (“Deficiencies regarding 

the manner in which a court obtains jurisdiction over a party, including those relating 

to a summons, are waivable and must be raised in a timely manner. Generally, such 

deficiencies can be cured.” (emphasis added) (citation omitted)). Therefore, the power 

to contest the personal jurisdiction of the court and the sufficiency of service of process 

lies with the defendant, and the defendant fails to exercise that power at her own 

peril. It would be incongruous for us to allow a defendant to waive those objections 

before the judgment but not afterward.

11 Therefore, whether pre- or post-judgment, 

a defendant must assert defenses concerning personal jurisdiction or the sufficiency 

of service of process at the first available opportunity, or they are waived.12

11 Cf. Swaim v. Moltan Co., 73 F.3d 711, 718 (7th Cir. 1996) (“A defense of lack of 

jurisdiction is forfeited if not asserted in a timely motion to dismiss under Rule 12 or a 

responsive pleading or amendment of such . . . [, and a] motion to vacate under Rule 60(b) for 

lack of jurisdiction is essentially equivalent to a Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of 

jurisdiction.”).

12 Consistent with our analysis, several Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals interpreting 

Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have held that a defendant waives 

objections to the validity of the judgment based on personal jurisdiction or the sufficiency of 

service of process if she fails to raise them at her first available opportunity after the 

judgment. See, e.g., Swaim, 73 F.3d at 716–18; In re Worldwide Web Sys., Inc., 328 F.2d 1291, 

1298–1302 (11th Cir. 2003); cf. State St. Bank & Tr. Co. v. Inversiones Errazuiz Limitada, 

374 F.3d 158, 178–79 (2d Cir. 2004); Feldman Inv. Co. v. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 78 F.2d 

838, 841 (10th Cir. 1935). As we have previously observed, “[t]he North Carolina Rules [of 

Civil Procedure] are modeled after the [F]ederal [R]ules [of Civil Procedure],” and “[i]n most 

instances, they are verbatim copies with the same enumerations.” Sutton v. Duke, 277 N.C. 

94, 99, 176 S.E.2d 161, 164 (1970). Indeed, except for a few minor differences in phraseology, 

Rule 60(b) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure is identical to Rule 60(b) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Compare N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 60(b), with Fed. R. Civ. P. 

60(b). Accordingly, although we emphasize that federal cases construing the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure are not binding on this Court, see Hart v. State, 368 N.C. 122, 130, 774 

S.E.2d 281, 287 (2015) (“As the court of last resort in this state, we answer with finality 

‘issues concerning the proper construction and application of North Carolina laws . . . .’ ” 
SLATTERY V. APPY CITY, LLC

Opinion of the Court

-17-

Moreover, our holding aligns with the practical considerations of 

post-judgment procedure. If we were to adopt a contrary rule, a defendant could 

appear before a court without contesting personal jurisdiction or the sufficiency of 

service of process and go through months—or even years—of post-judgment 

proceedings. All the while, the defendant would hold a trump card in her back pocket: 

if she received an unfavorable ruling, she could undo years of litigation by moving to 

vacate the judgment as void. A final judgment cannot rest upon such a flimsy 

foundation.

Because defendant moved to claim exempt property after judgment without 

raising her objection to the sufficiency of service of process, she made a general 

appearance in the action and waived her objections to the sufficiency of service of 

process and personal jurisdiction. We also hold that with respect to the Business 

Court’s decision to deny defendant’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion, it did not abuse its 

discretion. See State v. McGrady, 368 N.C. 880, 893, 787 S.E.2d 1, 11 (2016) (stating 

that a trial court abuses its discretion if its decision is manifestly unsupported by 

reason and could not have been the result of a reasoned decision). The decision of the 

Business Court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

(quoting State ex rel. Martin v. Preston, 325 N.C. 438, 449, 385 S.E.2d 473, 479 (1989)), we 

consider the aforementioned cases as “pertinent for guidance and enlightenment as we 

develop the philosophy of” our Rules of Civil Procedure, Johnson v. Johnson, 14 N.C. App. 

40, 42, 187 S.E.2d 420, 421 (1972).
SLATTERY V. APPY CITY, LLC

Riggs, J., dissenting

-18-

Justice RIGGS dissenting.

Two centuries ago, this Court recognized “a principle never to be lost sight of, 

that no person should be deprived of his property or rights without notice and an 

opportunity of defending them. This right is guaranteed by the [state] 

Constitution. . . . A judgment entered up otherwise would be a mere nullity.” 

Hamilton v. Adams, 6 N.C. (1 Mur.) 161, 162 (1812). The same is true under our 

federal constitution. See, e.g., Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1877) (holding that a 

judgment rendered against a person by a court without personal jurisdiction is void 

as violating federal due process). In vindication of this right, we have previously held 

that “[a] default judgment rendered against a defendant in an action where he has 

never been served with process returnable to the proper county, nor appeared in 

person or by attorney, is not simply voidable, but void.” Harrell v. Welstead, 206 N.C. 

817, 819 (1934) (emphasis added). This is irrespective of any post-judgment 

appearance, as “[e]very court, before it can enter a lawful judgment, must have 

jurisdiction, (1) of the subject-matter, and (2) of the person.” Stafford v. Gallops, 123 

N.C. 19, 22 (1898) (emphasis added); see also Harrell, 206 N.C. at 820 (“The one fatal 

circumstance [to the validity of the judgment], which is not to be overlooked, is that 

no appearance of any kind was made by the corporate defendant before judgment

cutting off its right to be heard on the merits.”). Because the majority’s holding is 

contrary to these precedents and erodes the due process rights enshrined in our state 
SLATTERY V. APPY CITY, LLC

Riggs, J., dissenting

-19-

and federal constitutions, I respectfully dissent.

I. Personal Jurisdiction as Fundamental Constitutional Protection

My objection to the majority’s holding in this case stems in no small part from 

a solemn respect for and desire to fully vindicate the rights enshrined in our state 

and federal constitutions. A discussion of personal jurisdiction’s constitutional 

character, missing from the majority, is warranted.

The requirement of personal jurisdiction is not merely a procedural 

safeguard—just as with subject-matter jurisdiction, the necessity of personal 

jurisdiction is “a basic, fundamental principle” of constitutional provenance. Bryson 

v. McCoy, 194 N.C. 91, 93 (1927). Early decisions of this Court recognize that “[t]he 

Constitution and laws of the country guarantee the principle that no freeman shall 

be divested of a right by the judgment of a court, unless he shall have been made 

party to the proceedings in which it shall have been obtained.” Armstrong v. 

Harshaw, 12 N.C. (1 Dev.) 187, 188 (1827). The United States Supreme Court has 

likewise remarked that:

it would seem to be a legal truism, too palpable to be 

elucidated by argument, that no person can be bound by a 

judgment, or any proceeding conducive thereto, to which he 

never was party or privy; that no person can be in default 

with respect to that which it never was incumbent upon 

him to fulfil. 

Harris v. Hardeman, 55 U.S. 334, 339 (1852).

Thus, entry of a judgment without personal jurisdiction over an affected party 

contravenes “the Bill of Rights, as well as . . . every conceivable principle of natural 
SLATTERY V. APPY CITY, LLC

Riggs, J., dissenting

-20-

justice.” Harrison v. Harrison, 106 N.C. 282, 283 (1890). Both subject-matter and 

personal jurisdiction have long been understood to be essential to the validity of a 

judgment. Stafford, 123 N.C. at 22. And our state and federal constitutions thus 

demand that a trial court have both subject-matter jurisdiction over the action and 

personal jurisdiction over the parties before judgment is entered. Id.; Harrell, 206 

N.C. at 820; see also Burke v. Elliott, 26 N.C. (1 Ired.) 355, 358 (1844) (“[T]he court is 

forbidden to enter judgment until notice is served.”); Vick v. Flournoy, 147 N.C. 209, 

215 (1908) (“There is no doubt of the correctness of the position . . . that a valid 

judgment strictly in personam cannot be had unless there has been a voluntary 

appearance by defendant or there has been service of process upon him within the 

jurisdiction of the court . . . .” (emphases added)). In short, as a predicate 

constitutional concern, “[j]urisdiction of the party, obtained by the court in some way 

allowed by law, is essential to enable the court to give a valid judgment against him.” 

Stancill v. Gay, 92 N.C. 462, 463 (1885) (emphasis added). No statute can diminish 

this constitutional guaranty. Bayard v. Singleton, 1 N.C. (Mart.) 5 (1787).

The majority uniformly holds that entry of a judgment without personal 

jurisdiction renders the judgment voidable, not void. This is plainly contrary to the 

longstanding constitutional principles outlined above and the overwhelming weight 

of authority enforcing them. See Harris, 55 U.S. at 339 (“[A] judgment depending 

upon proceedings in personam can have no force as to one on whom there has been 

no service of process . . . . That with respect to such a person, such a judgment is 
SLATTERY V. APPY CITY, LLC

Riggs, J., dissenting

-21-

absolutely void . . . .”); Doyle v. Brown, 72 N.C. 393, 395 (1875) (“Where a defendant 

has never been served with process, nor appeared in person, or by attorney, a 

judgment against him is not simply voidable, but void . . . .”); Card v. Finch, 142 N.C. 

140, 144 (1906) (“It is axiomatic, at least in American jurisprudence, that a judgment 

rendered by a court against a citizen affecting his vested rights in an action or 

proceeding to which he is not a party is absolutely void and may be treated as a nullity 

whenever it is brought to the attention of the Court.”).

Nor can I agree that, in all cases, the judgment debtor must assert a personal 

jurisdiction argument at the earliest opportunity. See Doyle, 72 N.C. at 395 (“Where 

a defendant has never been served with process, nor appeared in person, or by 

attorney, a judgment against him is not simply voidable, but void; and it may be so 

treated whenever and wherever offered . . . .” (emphasis added)); Harrison, 106 N.C. 

at 285 (“Something more than bare notice is necessary to estop one from setting aside 

a void proceeding. Neither can a delay in making this motion preclude them.”).

II. Voidable Procedural Irregularities vs. Void Judgments

To be sure, this Court has held that when the face of the record suggests that 

service is valid but no such service actually occurred, the judgment may be enforced 

until challenged and vacated in the underlying action. Doyle, 72 N.C. at 395. And 

the majority is certainly correct to note that some defects in service are curable. See 

In re K.J.L., 363 N.C. 343, 346 (2009) (“Deficiencies regarding the manner in which 

a court obtains jurisdiction over a party, including those relating to a summons, are 
SLATTERY V. APPY CITY, LLC

Riggs, J., dissenting

-22-

waivable and must be raised in a timely manner. Generally, such deficiencies can be 

cured.” (emphasis added) (citation omitted)). But, contrary to the holding of the 

majority in this case, we have previously distinguished void and voidable judgments 

in the context of service of process by explaining that “[d]efective service has given 

rise to many irregularities in the course of the courts, but it will be found that they 

do not render the final judgment void, but only irregular, unless the defect is such as 

to amount to no service.” Stafford, 123 N.C. at 22–23 (emphasis added); see also 

Guerin v. Guerin, 208 N.C. 457, 458 (1935) (“Since the defendant, the movant, has 

never been given notice of any action pending against her in Alamance County, she 

has never been served with process, and for that reason the judgment entered against 

her was void and her motion to set the same aside was properly allowed.”). Defects

in process or service of process may render a judgment voidable, but a lack of service 

of process renders it void. Stafford, 123 N.C. at 22–23.

Here, the trial court determined that no service was ever accomplished in this 

case prior to judgment—a ruling the majority sees fit to assume without disturbing, 

and with which I agree. The lack of personal jurisdiction pre-judgment is fatal to the 

judgment’s validity, as “[n]otice and an opportunity to be heard are prerequisites of 

jurisdiction, and jurisdiction is a prerequisite of a valid judgment.” Bd. of Comm’rs of 

Roxboro v. Bumpass, 233 N.C. 190, 195 (1951) (citations omitted) (emphasis added). 

In such circumstances, a judgment is void and not merely voidable. See, e.g., 

Simmons v. Defiance Box Co., 148 N.C. 344, 345 (1908) (noting a judgment procured 
SLATTERY V. APPY CITY, LLC

Riggs, J., dissenting

-23-

through fraud on a party is voidable, but a facially regular judgment entered when 

“in fact there was no service of summons nor appearance by the defendant . . . is 

void”). 

The proposition that a lack of service in fact and related absence of personal 

jurisdiction renders a judgment void has been reaffirmed many times by our Court. 

For example, in City of Monroe v. Niven, the plaintiff obtained a judgment and, while 

a summons was returned showing service on all defendants, only one defendant had 

been served. 221 N.C. 362, 363 (1942). The lower court held that this lack of service 

rendered the judgment voidable rather than void and denied the unserved 

defendants’ motion to vacate. Id. at 364. We reversed, holding that the judgment 

was “void in fact” for lack of personal jurisdiction and that the defendant’s postjudgment appearance did not serve to validate the void judgment, as “[a] nullity is a 

nullity, and out of nothing nothing comes. Ex nihilo nihil fit is one maxim that admits 

of no exception.” Id. at 364–65 (quoting Harrell, 206 N.C. at 819). 

This position is further reinforced in cases dealing directly with judgments 

entered following default. See Simmons, 148 N.C. at 345–46 (“Where the summons 

was not served on defendant and he did not enter an appearance nor have any 

knowledge of the action until after default judgment, the judgment is void . . . .” 

(quoting Doyle, 72 N.C. at 393 (emphasis added)). Decades after Doyle, we explicitly 

held in Harrell that such judgments entered without service are “not simply voidable, 

but void, and will be set aside on motion.” 206 N.C. at 819. Subsequently, in North 
SLATTERY V. APPY CITY, LLC

Riggs, J., dissenting

-24-

State Finance Co. v. Leonard, we held a default judgment—entered against a 

defendant the trial court later found was never served—was likewise entirely void as 

a nullity. 263 N.C. 167, 170–71 (1964). Even more plainly, we stated in Harrington 

v. Rice that “[i]f in fact the summons and complaint were not served on the . . . 

defendant . . . , the default judgment . . . is void.” 245 N.C. 640, 642 (1957). This legal 

maxim has survived the adoption of and remains in force under our Rules of Civil 

Procedure. See, e.g., Guthrie v. Ray, 293 N.C. 67, 71 (1977) (“If, in fact, the summons 

and complaint were not served upon defendant as prescribed by G.S. 1A-1, Rule 

4(j)(1)(a), the default judgment . . . and the judgment . . . assessing damages against 

him are void and must be set aside.”). In short, I would adhere to precedents 

establishing that “[a] judgment against a defendant is void where the court was 

without personal jurisdiction.” Macher v. Macher, 188 N.C. App. 537, 539 (emphasis 

added), aff’d per curiam, 362 N.C. 505 (2008).

III. General Appearance

Even if a judgment entered without personal jurisdiction is merely voidable, 

and thus waivable by a post-judgment general appearance, I would not hold that Ms. 

Barber’s motion to claim exemptions was such an appearance, because the mere filing 

of her motion did not “invoke[ ] the judgment of the court in any manner on any 

question other than that of . . . jurisdiction.” Lynch v. Lynch, 302 N.C. 189, 197 (1981) 

(emphasis added) (quoting In re Blalock, 233 N.C. 493, 504 (1951). 

The filing of a motion to claim exemptions does not, in and of itself, call upon 
SLATTERY V. APPY CITY, LLC

Riggs, J., dissenting

-25-

the trial court to exercise its judgment or adjudicate a dispute in any meaningful 

sense; unless opposed by objection and motion from the judgment creditor, “the clerk 

must enter an order designating the property allowed by law and scheduled by the 

judgment debtor as exempt property.” N.C.G.S. § 1C-1603(e)(6) (2021) (emphasis 

added). It is only when “the judgment creditor objects to the schedule filed or claimed 

by the judgment debtor [that] the clerk must place the motion for hearing by the 

district court judge, without a jury, at the next civil session.” N.C.G.S. § 1C-1603(e)(7) 

(2021). The trial court therefore does not exercise any judgment unless and until it 

holds a hearing to resolve the judgment creditor’s objections. Here, while Mr. Slattery 

did file an objection triggering such a hearing, Ms. Barber filed her motion to set aside 

the default and judgment prior to said hearing, and thus raised her personal 

jurisdiction objection prior to appearing in any adjudicatory proceeding. 

IV. Remaining Arguments

In its remaining arguments, the majority reevaluates our state and federal 

constitutions’ precondition of personal jurisdiction under a “modern” lens. I am not 

convinced by that approach. Many of our sister courts have not adopted the view 

espoused by the majority. See, e.g., McCulley v. Brooks & Co. General Contractors,

816 S.E.2d 270, 273–74 n.4 (Va. 2018) (collecting cases holding a post-judgment 

appearance cannot retroactively validate a judgment void for want of personal 

jurisdiction when entered). This Court’s own “modern” jurisprudence confirms that 

judgments entered without personal jurisdiction are void and not merely voidable. 
SLATTERY V. APPY CITY, LLC

Riggs, J., dissenting

-26-

See Hazelwood v. Bailey, 339 N.C. 578, 586 (1995) (“[W]e believe that this Court today 

would reach the same result[ ] as th[at] reached by this Court in Harrell in 

1934 . . . .”).

As for the practical considerations raised by the majority concerning finality 

and gamesmanship, other jurisdictions held decades ago that a judgment void for lack 

of personal jurisdiction cannot be saved by a post-judgment appearance, and those 

states do not appear to have suffered any of the ill-effects theorized by the majority. 

Doyle v. Wilcockson, 169 N.W. 241, 244 (Iowa 1918); Gallagher v. Nat’l Nonpartisan 

League, 205 N.W. 674, 675–76 (N.D. 1925); Perry v. Edmonds, 84 P.2d 711, 713 (Nev. 

1938); Irving Tr. Co. v. Seltzer, 40 N.Y.S.2d 451, 456 (1943); Jones v. Colescott, 307 

P.2d 464, 465 (Colo. 1957); Bulik v. Arrow Realty, Inc. of Racine, 434 N.W.2d 853, 855 

(Wis. Ct. App. 1988). And regardless of the majority’s holding today, civil judgments 

void for lack of personal jurisdiction generally remain subject to challenge years after 

entry under Rule 60(b). See, e.g., Freeman v. Freeman, 155 N.C. App. 603, 608 (2002) 

(holding a divorce judgment was void and must be set aside under Rule 60(b) 

seventeen years after entry when the trial court’s findings established the defendant 

had never been served despite her purported signature on an acceptance of service), 

disc. rev. denied, 357 N.C. 250 (2003).

The majority’s invocation of a hypothetical bad actor is similarly unpersuasive. 

It is unclear what favorable ruling a judgment debtor might seek to receive while 

knowingly allowing a void civil judgment—in this case, in the enormous sum of 
SLATTERY V. APPY CITY, LLC

Riggs, J., dissenting

-27-

$2,000,000—to hang over their affairs like a judicial Sword of Damocles.1 The same 

risk of gamesmanship already exists where subject matter jurisdiction is concerned. 

Any attorney who purposefully counsels their client and knowingly assists in such a 

scheme would run the risk of violating our Rules of Professional Conduct in their 

obligations to the client, the court, and opposing parties. N.C. R. Pro. Conduct 3.1 

(“Meritorious claims and contentions”), 3.3 (“Candor toward the tribunal”), 4.1 

(“Truthfulness in statements to others”), and 8.4 (“Misconduct”). I do not believe the 

protections of our state and federal constitutions are subject to erosion because of 

remote hypotheticals involving imagined parties purposefully proceeding in bad faith.

V. Conclusion

“ ‘Due process of law’ requires that service of process shall always be made.” 

Bernhardt v. Brown, 118 N.C. 700, 705 (1896). Here, the judgment was entered after 

default and without personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and thus was null and 

void on entry. Stafford, 123 N.C. at 22; Guthrie, 293 N.C. at 71; Roxboro, 233 N.C. at 

195. Notwithstanding the constitutional command that no judgment is validly 

entered under such circumstances, the majority nonetheless holds that lack of 

personal jurisdiction renders a judgment merely voidable, and Ms. Barber 

retroactively supplied personal jurisdiction through a general appearance. At a 

1 The negative impacts of an outstanding civil judgment extend beyond the legal 

realm. In addition to subjecting future real and personal property to ongoing claims in 

execution of the judgment, N.C.G.S. § 1-313, a civil judgment—viewable by anyone as a public 

record—may affect a person’s ability to afford or obtain insurance, credit, or rental housing.
SLATTERY V. APPY CITY, LLC

Riggs, J., dissenting

-28-

minimum, our precedents and the facts of this case do not demand such a holding 

and, as detailed above, I believe they—along with our State and federal 

constitutions—compel the opposite result. As other courts have observed, “ruling 

otherwise . . . ‘defies logic and common sense.’ ” McCulley, 816 S.E.2d at 274 (quoting 

Abarca v. Henry L. Hanson, Inc., 738 P.2d 519, 520 (N.M. Ct. App. 1987)). Or, put 

more colorfully, “[j]ust as medicine may cure a sick man of a fatal disease but not 

revive him after his burial, a litigant can ‘cure’ the absence of personal jurisdiction 

by making a general appearance prior to final judgment but cannot resurrect a void 

judgment thereafter.” McCulley, 816 S.E.2d at 273. I respectfully dissent.

Justice EARLS joins in this dissenting opinion.