Court Opinion

ID: 9539837
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:10:54.938569+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:23.505576
License: Public Domain

JACKSON, Judge
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in section I of the majority’s opinion. However, I dissent from the majority’s holding in section II. In the case sub judice, plaintiff’s paternity was established judicially on 29 January 2002 by an order from the trial court. Defendant failed to appeal that order in a timely manner and failed to seek relief properly pursuant to the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 60(b). Therefore, I would affirm the trial court’s dismissal of defendant’s motion for a paternity test.
North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 60 provides for the method of relief from a judgment or order. In pertinent part, Rule 60(b) provides that
(0)n motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:
(1) Mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) Newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) Fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party;
*792(6) Any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.
The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2) and (3) not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken. Amotion under this section does not affect the finality of a judgment or suspend its operation. This rule does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, order, or proceeding, or to set aside a judgment for fraud upon the court. The procedure for obtaining any relief from a judgment, order, or proceeding shall be by motion as prescribed in these rules or by an independent action.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 60(b) (2007) (emphasis added).
In the case sub judice, on 29 January 2002, the trial court entered an order that found as fact “[t]hat the [p]laintiff and [defendant, who are not married and have never held themselves out as husband and wife, are the biological father Qp]laintiff) and mother ([defendant) of the minor child, namely Devon Helms, born on 8-27-99.” The trial court’s conclusions of law and decree also refer to plaintiff as the child’s father. Defendant did not appeal from this order. Instead, on 3 July. 2007, defendant filed a motion for proof of plaintiff’s paternity.
Defendant’s motion is well-beyond the one year limit to seek relief from a judgment or order pursuant to the reasons set forth in Rule 60(b)(l)-(3); it also is unreasonably late to seek relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6). See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 60(b) (2007). Furthermore, defendant has not sought relief from alleged fraud on the court pursuant to an independent action within the meaning of Rule 60(b). See id.
Accordingly, I would hold that the trial court’s judicial determination of plaintiff’s paternity remains in effect pursuant to the order entered on 29 January 2002. Because defendant failed to challenge the trial court’s order entered on 29 January 2002 pursuant to timely appeal, and because defendant failed to seek relief from the order pursuant to the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 60(b), I would affirm the trial court’s dismissal of defendant’s improper and untimely motion.