Imagine you are a litigant in a civil case and the trial court has entered an order that leaves you unhappy. Let’s say that you cannot appeal this order. After all, many orders do not give rise to the right of appeal. Final judgments do, as do interlocutory orders affecting a substantial right and some other types of orders, but there are plenty of orders issued by a trial court as intermediate steps in civil litigation that an appellate court ordinarily will not review. What are you, the aggrieved litigant, to do? You ask a colleague. They suggest you file a motion to reconsider in the trial court.
A motion to reconsider is a motion that asks a district or superior court judge to replace some order in a case with a different order. In the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, there is no single rule explicitly authorizing a generic motion to reconsider. The North Carolina Court of Appeals (NCCOA) noted “continuing confusion among litigants about the effect of so-called ‘motions to reconsider[.]’” Doe v. City of Charlotte, 273 N.C. App. 10, 16 (2020). Litigants “might rely on Rule 54(b), which … implies that a litigant may ask the trial court to revise any decision in the case until the entry of a final judgment on all claims as to all parties.” Id. (internal citation omitted). While the language of Rule 54(b) is broad, it is not unlimited. This post looks at two ways in which Rule 54 does not allow reconsideration.
Rule 54(b) contains two provisions. First:
When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action … the court may enter a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only if there is no just reason for delay and it is so determined in the judgment. Such judgment shall then be subject to review by appeal …
G.S. 1A-1, Rule 54(b). This provision authorizes the court to enter a final judgment on some claims or against some parties (a “partial final judgment”) in some circumstances. The partial final judgment may then be appealed if (1) the trial court certifies that there is no just reason for delaying the judgment on some claims while others remain pending, and (2) the partial final judgment affects a substantial right under G.S. 1-277(a). Cf. G.S. 7A-27(b). Second, Rule 54(b) allows the trial court to revise any other order at any time up until final judgment:
Similarly, in the absence of entry of such a final judgment, any order or other form of decision is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties.
G.S. 1A-1, Rule 54(b). The last sentence of the rule appears to give the trial court expansive authority to revisit earlier rulings, but how late in the litigation may the trial court revise its orders under this rule?
Do Not Use Rule 54(b) to Reconsider Final Judgments
In Welbourne v. Barbee, ___ N.C. App. ___, 925 S.E.2d 370 (2025), review allowed, 930 S.E.2d 219 (2026), the North Carolina Court of Appeals (NCCOA) considered whether Rule 54(b) authorizes the trial court to reconsider a final judgment that has been rendered but not yet entered. As a reminder, a judge renders judgment by announcing it from the bench. By contrast, “a judgment is entered when it is reduced to writing, signed by the judge, and filed with the clerk of [superior] court.” G.S. 1A-1, Rule 58 (emphasis added). For more on rendition and entry of judgment, see this post by Cheryl Howell.
In Welbourne, the trial court rendered an order granting the defendant’s motion to enforce a settlement agreement between the parties. Before entry of that order, the plaintiffs moved the court to reconsider the ruling from the bench under Rule 54(b) or alternatively, to amend the judgment under Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). The trial court entered the order enforcing the settlement agreement and later denied the plaintiffs’ motions. On appeal to the NCCOA, the plaintiffs argued that Rule 54(b) “allow[ed] complete and final rendered judgments to be reviewed by the trial court before they are entered.” Welbourne, 925 S.E.2d at 378. The NCCOA concluded that Rule 54(b) does not allow a trial court to reconsider a final judgment because the plain language of Rule 54(b) applies to final judgments only “as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties.” G.S. 1A-1, Rule 54(b). In other words, once the trial court has made a decision disposing of the case as a whole, Rule 54(b) is not an appropriate mechanism to ask the trial court to reconsider its decision.
In another case, a plaintiff who had been unable to attend a hearing moved the trial court to reconsider its order granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in order to allow the plaintiff to be heard on that motion. Cunningham v. Bravo 4 Autoworks LLC, 300 N.C. App. 23, 27 (2025). The plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration put the trial court in an awkward position. The trial court, after all, had already entered an order granting summary judgment to the defendant. This order is a final judgment because it disposes of all claims before the trial court. Allowing the plaintiff to be heard on a motion that has already been decided does not make sense unless the trial court first sets aside its own judgment and reopens the litigation under Rule 60(b). Eventually, the plaintiff’s motion to reconsider was denied and the NCCOA affirmed the trial court’s order. Id.
It is worth noting that the plaintiff’s appeal of the denial of the motion to reconsider in Cunningham did not constitute an appeal from the underlying summary judgment order as the plaintiff did not file a timely notice of appeal from that order. But there are situations in which an order entered by the trial court on a motion to reconsider does allow appellate review of the substantive issue in the underlying order.
Be Cautious Drafting Orders Denying Reconsideration
When a trial court denies a motion to reconsider under Rule 54(b), what is the court saying? Does the order denying the motion merely decline to revisit the court’s earlier ruling? Or does the order reaffirm the substance of the earlier ruling?
The answer depends on the text of the order denying reconsideration. A recent opinion of the North Carolina Supreme Court (NCSC), Byrd v. Avco Corp., 389 N.C. 32 (2026), illustrates how a trial court’s order that purportedly refuses to reconsider an earlier ruling can undermine itself. During litigation resulting from the crash of a small aircraft that killed all aboard, the defendant aircraft engine manufacturer moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant on all claims except for one, concluding that a federal statute of repose barred all other claims. Following the summary judgment order, the defendant moved the court for reconsideration under Rules 7 and 54(b).
The trial court entered an order denying the defendant’s motion for reconsideration, but the trial court’s reasoning in this order differed slightly from its reasoning in the summary judgment order. In the summary judgment order, the trial court stated that a finding by the jury may be required about whether the defendant concealed or withheld information from the Federal Aviation Administration. In the order denying the motion to reconsider, the trial court said such a finding “will be required.” Byrd, 389 N.C. at 35 (emphasis in original).
Ordinarily, the denial of a motion to reconsider is not appealable. But in this situation, the NCSC reasoned that an order denying a motion to reconsider that also “address[es] the substance of the underlying claim” is a “new order” that may be appealable if it deprives the defendant of a substantial right. Id. at 39. In this particular case, the denial of a motion for summary judgment as to one claim based on a statute of repose implicates a substantial right because a statute of repose provides the defendant with the “right to be free from the burdens of trial.” Id. at 44.
The takeaway for trial court practitioners is that an order that denies a motion to reconsider under Rule 54(b) should be as concise as possible to avoid creating a reviewable issue relating to the substance of the original order. The NCSC has held there is a difference between an order that states the court will not reconsider a previously-entered order and an order that reanalyzes the issues underlying a previously-entered order if it reaches the same result through slightly different reasoning. Further, while the trial court must exercise discretion in ruling on a motion to reconsider, there is no requirement that the trial court hold a hearing. Cf. Henderson v. Wachovia Bank of North Carolina, N.A.,145 N.C. App. 621, 628 (2001) (no error when trial court denied Rule 60(b) motion to reconsider on affidavits). See also Zairy v. VKO, Inc., 212 N.C. App. 687 (2011) (trial court’s denial of plaintiff’s request to re-evaluate earlier order not appealable).
Under Rule 54(b), as interpreted by our appellate courts, a trial court entering an order on a motion to reconsider should be as clear and concise as possible about what the court is actually considering, and a trial court should not grant a Rule 54(b) motion after the court has made a decision disposing of all claims in the case—even if that judgment has not yet been entered.
