Court Opinion

ID: 9953661
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-22 16:09:29.41744+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:03:05.022948
License: Public Domain

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

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.”

                                           -2-
                                SLATTERY V. APPY CITY, LLC

                                      Opinion of the Court

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.

                                              -3-
                              SLATTERY V. APPY CITY, LLC

                                    Opinion of the Court

      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.

                                            -4-
                              SLATTERY V. APPY CITY, LLC

                                    Opinion of the Court

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.

                                            -5-
                              SLATTERY V. APPY CITY, LLC

                                     Opinion of the Court

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).

                                             -6-
                             SLATTERY V. APPY CITY, LLC

                                   Opinion of the Court

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

                                           -7-
                             SLATTERY V. APPY CITY, LLC

                                   Opinion of the Court

[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

                                           -8-
                              SLATTERY V. APPY CITY, LLC

                                   Opinion of the Court

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

                                           -9-
                             SLATTERY V. APPY CITY, LLC

                                   Opinion of the Court

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

                                          -10-
                                 SLATTERY V. APPY CITY, LLC

                                       Opinion of the Court

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.

                                               -11-
                               SLATTERY V. APPY CITY, LLC

                                     Opinion of the Court

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)).

                                             -12-
                               SLATTERY V. APPY CITY, LLC

                                      Opinion of the Court

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

                                             -13-
                               SLATTERY V. APPY CITY, LLC

                                     Opinion of the Court

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.

                                            -14-
                             SLATTERY V. APPY CITY, LLC

                                   Opinion of the Court

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)

                                          -15-
                               SLATTERY V. APPY CITY, LLC

                                     Opinion of the Court

(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 . . . .’ ”

                                             -16-
                              SLATTERY V. APPY CITY, LLC

                                    Opinion of the Court

       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).

                                           -17-
                             SLATTERY V. APPY CITY, LLC

                                   Riggs, J., dissenting

      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

                                           -18-
                             SLATTERY V. APPY CITY, LLC

                                   Riggs, J., dissenting

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

                                           -19-
                             SLATTERY V. APPY CITY, LLC

                                    Riggs, J., dissenting

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

                                            -20-
                             SLATTERY V. APPY CITY, LLC

                                   Riggs, J., dissenting

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

                                           -21-
                             SLATTERY V. APPY CITY, LLC

                                   Riggs, J., dissenting

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

                                           -22-
                               SLATTERY V. APPY CITY, LLC

                                     Riggs, J., dissenting

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 post-

judgment 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

                                             -23-
                              SLATTERY V. APPY CITY, LLC

                                    Riggs, J., dissenting

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

                                            -24-
                                SLATTERY V. APPY CITY, LLC

                                     Riggs, J., dissenting

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.

                                             -25-
                              SLATTERY V. APPY CITY, LLC

                                    Riggs, J., dissenting

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

                                            -26-
                               SLATTERY V. APPY CITY, LLC

                                     Riggs, J., dissenting

$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

       1The 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.

                                             -27-
                            SLATTERY V. APPY CITY, LLC

                                  Riggs, J., dissenting

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.

                                          -28-