Court Opinion

ID: 9855659
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:28:58.710851+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:36:18.919383
License: Public Domain

BIGGS, Judge
Dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. As noted by the majority, there are no findings of fact for this Court to review to determine whether or not the Ellers’ attorney had Mrs. Eller’s consent to enter into the consent judgment. I would remand for findings by the trial court.
Defendants’ decision to appeal the entry of judgment by the trial court directly to this Court prior to filing a motion pursuant to Rule 60(b), has precluded the trial court from making findings on the dis-positive issue in this appeal. Defendants in their brief offer the following explanation:
The Defendant Appellants note to the Court that a Rule 60 Motion does not toll the period for filing appeal. In the case before the Court the Defendant Appellants proceeded with Notice of Appeal in order not to waive any right of appeal. A later Notice of Appeal from the written judgment was also filed in order not to waive right of appeal. The period to file such appeal was insufficient to allow the time necessary to proceed with a Rule 60 motion prior to filling [sic] Notice of Appeal. The parties have stipulated that the Defendant Brenda Dennis Eller was not present at the entry of [the] consent judgment. Rule 60 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure state that a Rule 60 motion to set aside a judgment may be filed within a reasonable time but such does not prevent other relief from being obtained from the court. Defendant Appellants have filed a Rule 60 motion.
While I offer no opinion on defendants’ decision to proceed as they did, the effect of that decision has been to leave this Court with an insufficient basis upon which to decide the issue of consent. In addition, it has taken away defendant’s (Mrs. Eller’s) opportunity to present her claim or defense.
*584This Court in Royal v. Hartle, 145 N.C. App. 181, - S.E.2d - (filed 17 July 2001) stated:
In North Carolina, whether a consent judgment should be set aside because it was entered without a party’s authority, consent, or knowledge requires application of the following principles: (1) the general desirability that a final judgment not be lightly disturbed, (2) where relief is sought from a judgment of dismissal or default, the relative interest of deciding cases on the merits and the interest in orderly procedure, (3) the opportunity the movant had to present his claim or defense, and (4) any intervening equities.
This Court in Nye v. Oates, 109 N.C. App. 289, 426 S.E.2d 291 chose not to rely on the presumption of validity to uphold the consent judgment in that case, but rather to remand for findings on whether the attorney had consent. I believe that a remand would better facilitate a decision based on the merits.