Court Opinion

ID: 9856451
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:47:47.77186+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:38:48.045035
License: Public Domain

Judge Greene
dissenting.
I would not vacate the judgment of the trial court on the grounds that it was without subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the Rule *46960 motion. In my opinion, the trial court had jurisdiction. The majority’s opinion is based on the holding that the Attorney General, in the filing of the Rule 60 motion, took “on the role of a party to the action.” I disagree. The trial court found as a fact that the Rule 60 motion was filed by the “office of the Attorney General for the State of North Carolina, on behalf of the plaintiff,” Theresa L. Sotelo. Because neither party objected to this finding of fact, this Court is bound by it. Anderson Chevrolet/Olds v. Higgins, 57 N.C. App. 650, 653, 292 S.E.2d 159, 161 (1982). It therefore follows that the Attorney General was not a party to the action. As such, because there is no dispute that Theresa L. Sotelo had standing to file the Rule 60 motion, the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the motion.
Whether the Attorney General had statutory authority to represent the plaintiff in the filing of the motion is not an issue properly before this Court, as neither the plaintiff nor defendant has raised this issue on appeal. N.C. R. App. P. 10.