Court Opinion

ID: 990148
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:17:00.586065+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:11:32.498266
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

GARTH E. MCGILLEWIE; CYNTHIA J.
MCGILLEWIE,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,

HYDRA MACHINERY COMPANY,
INCORPORATED,
Debtor-Appellant,

                                    No. 95-2897
v.

PARKER, POE, ADAMS & BERNSTEIN,
P.A., formerly known as Parker,
Poe, Thompson, Bernstein, Gage &
Preston, a North Carolina General
Partnership,
Defendant-Appellee.

GARTH E. MCGILLEWIE; CYNTHIA J.
MCGILLEWIE,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,

HYDRA MACHINERY COMPANY,
INCORPORATED,
Debtor-Appellee,

                                    No. 95-2931
v.

PARKER, POE, ADAMS & BERNSTEIN,
P.A., formerly known as Parker,
Poe, Thompson, Bernstein, Gage &
Preston, a North Carolina General
Partnership,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Graham C. Mullen, District Judge.
(CA-93-90-3-MU)

Argued: July 9, 1996

Decided: August 16, 1996

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Seth R. Cohen, SMITH, FOLLIN & JAMES, Greens-
boro, North Carolina, for Appellants. C. Ralph Kinsey, Jr., UNDER-
WOOD, KINSEY, WARREN & TUCKER, P.A., Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Norman B. Smith, SMITH,
FOLLIN & JAMES, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellants.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

In August 1985, Hydra Machinery Company, Inc. executed a con-
tract with Moog Maschinenvertrieb under which Hydra was desig-
nated the exclusive United States importer of Moog Maschinenver-
trieb's under-bridge repair equipment. Contending that Moog Maschi-
nenvertrieb breached the contract by supplying defective equipment
and failing to insure it properly, Hydra retained Parker, Poe, Adams

                    2
& Bernstein to sue Moog Maschinenvertrieb for breach of contract,
breach of warranties, and unfair and deceptive trade practices. Parker,
Poe, Adams & Bernstein prepared the complaint, filed it, served it by
mail on Moog Maschinenvertrieb in Germany, and, when Moog Mas-
chinenvertrieb failed to respond, obtained a default judgment in the
amount of $1,183,266. When the law firm sought to enforce the judg-
ment in Minnesota against assets allegedly shipped there by Moog
Maschinenvertrieb, a Minnesota state court vacated the judgment
because Moog Maschinenvertrieb had not been served in the manner
specified by the Hague Convention.

Hydra and its principals, Garth McGillewie and his wife, Cynthia
McGillewie, subsequently filed a consolidated, voluntary petition in
bankruptcy. Their trustee in bankruptcy filed this action against Par-
ker, Poe, Adams & Bernstein, alleging in their final amended com-
plaint that the firm was negligent (1) in failing to serve the proper
person, i.e., Alfons Moog, because Moog Maschinenvertrieb alleg-
edly was not a legal entity, and (2) in failing to effect service in the
manner prescribed by the Hague Convention.

Parker, Poe, Adams & Bernstein responded that (1) the plaintiffs
could have re-served the proper Moog interest under the Hague Con-
vention, but refused to do so; (2) the plaintiffs did not demonstrate
they had been damaged; (3) the plaintiffs failed to show that the judg-
ment was collectible; and (4) the malpractice action was in any event
barred by statutes of limitations and repose.

The district court, addressing some of these defenses, ultimately
granted the law firm's motion for summary judgment on the ground
that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate their judgment was collectible.
See Rorrer v. Cooke, 329 S.E.2d 355, 369 (N.C. 1985).

Having carefully considered the briefs and arguments of counsel,
we affirm on the reasoning of the district court as set forth in its order
dated September 15 (filed September 18), 1995, on the issue of the
collectibility of the default judgment. See In re McGillewie, No.
93-CV-90 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 15, 1995).

AFFIRMED

                     3