Articles in the Civil Procedure-General category - Page 5 of 7

Lawyers typically don’t litigate (nor judges adjudicate) for very long in North Carolina without confronting Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).  This rule allows a trial court to “relieve a party…from a final judgment, order, or proceeding” for a number of reasons based in equity. The reasons are divided into six categories:

• Mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
• Newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
• Fraud…, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party;
• The judgment is void;
• The judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or
• Any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.

Unlike Rule 50 (JNOV) and 59 (new trial) motions, which must be made within 10 days after judgment, Rule 60(b) motions may be filed up to one year from the order (or, for the last three categories, potentially even later), as long as the timing is reasonable. There will be occasions when the moving party can be heard by the same judge who issued the order.  But often the passage of time can make this difficult: The judge may be presiding in a different district or may be ill, on leave, or no longer on the bench.  It’s not surprising, then, that fairly often my colleagues and I are asked:  May a judge other than the original judge hear and rule on a Rule 60(b) motion?

Last month John Oliver made headlines across the country when his TV show, Last Week Tonight, did an episode focusing on common practices by debt buyers.  To illustrate how easy […]

In honor of this short court week, here’s a brief post answering a question I’ve been asked a few times:  When a statute authorizes a court to award reasonable attorney […]

In civil litigation, delays can seem almost inevitable. Because litigation happens in the real world and not a perfect one, the Rules of Civil Procedure allow a little flexibility.  Within […]

On Tuesday of this week, the Court of Appeals in Pope v. Pope upheld a decision by a trial judge to set aside a DVPO pursuant to GS 1A-1, Rule 60(b)(5). The trial court concluded, and the court of appeals agreed, that evidence showing plaintiff clearly was no longer afraid of defendant established that “it was no longer equitable for the judgment to have prospective application.”

READ POST "DVPO Can Be Set Aside When Victim is No Longer Afraid (May 20, 2016)"

Anyone who has ever been a juror in a civil trial probably remembers the judge’s repeated instructions not to talk to anyone about the case prior to deliberations, to avoid communications with parties, witnesses, and attorneys, to report to the bailiff when anyone tries to talk to a juror about the case, to avoid media coverage of the trial, to refrain from doing independent investigation (nope, not even casual Googling), and to base the verdict only on the evidence.  The whole point, of course, is to make the trial as fair as possible.  But what if a juror goes astray? When can a losing party get relief based on the juror’s misdeeds?

Rule 59 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure sets out nine categories of grounds for a new trial. Among them is Rule 59(a)(2), which in part allows a court to grant a new trial based on “misconduct of the jury.”  Yesterday in Town of Beech Mountain v. Genesis Wildlife Sanctuary, Inc., the Court of Appeals assessed whether the trial judge should have ordered a new trial where,

Even if you don’t know much about North Carolina’s Rules of Appellate Procedure, you probably know this:  There’s a 30-day time frame in which to appeal a civil judgment, and this deadline is jurisdictional—an untimely notice of appeal “mandates dismissal” of the appeal.  E.g., Bailey v. State, 353 N.C. 142, 156 (2000).  In other words, Thou Shalt Not Miss Thy Appeal Deadline.  Naturally, then, a would-be appellant needs to know when the 30-day appeal period begins and ends.

The general time requirement is set out in Rule 3(c)(1), which makes clear that the notice of appeal must be filed and served within 30 days after entry of judgment as long as “the party has been served with a copy of the judgment within the three-day period prescribed by Rule 58 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.”  (Served pursuant to Rule 5 within three days of entry of judgment.)  Under Rule 3(c)(2), however, when the party is not served within that three day period, the notice of appeal must be filed and served within 30 days “after service upon the party of a copy of the judgment.”

By the plain language of Rule 3(c)(2), a party not served within three days would be led to think that its 30-day appeal clock starts when service is made.  Not so fast.  In a series of fairly recent opinions, the Court of Appeals has held that, if the appellant had some sort of actual notice of the judgment during those three days after its entry, Rule 3(c)(2) does not apply.  If there was actual notice, the 30 days instead began to run upon entry of judgment.  Here, in brief, are the opinions:

A minor injured through negligence or other wrongdoing may bring an action through a representative to recover damages for pain and suffering, permanent injury, and impairment of earning capacity. (A claim for reimbursement of the minor’s medical expenses typically belongs to the parents.) Although minors generally are legally incapable of binding themselves to contracts, the law allows a minor’s claims to be resolved through a settlement agreement. The settlement, however, is not enforceable against the minor unless it has first been investigated and approved by the court. Sigmund Sternberger Found., Inc. v. Tannenbaum, 273 N.C. 658, 677 (1968); Ballard v. Hunter, 12 N.C. App. 613, 619 (1971). Even if the settlement is arranged by a parent, guardian, guardian ad litem, estate administrator, or attorney, the minor cannot be bound absent prior court approval. Sell v. Hotchkiss, 264 N.C. 185, 191 (1965); In re Reynolds, 206 N.C. 276 (1934); Hagins v. Phipps, 1 N.C. App. 63 (1968). The rule applies not just to claims settled after an action is filed, but also to pre-litigation settlements including waivers of a minor’s right to sue. Creech v. Melnik, 147 N.C. App. 471, 475 (2001).

The purpose of the court’s review is to protect the interests of the minor. The investigation must focus on the minor’s welfare and fairness to the minor under the circumstances. See Redwine v. Clodfelter, 226 N.C. 366, 370 (1946) (minor’s welfare is the “guiding star”); Reynolds v. Reynolds, 208 N.C. 578, 631−32 (1935) (affirming “fair, just, and equitable” settlement).

North Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 59 permits a trial judge to order a “new trial” for a number of reasons, including prejudicial irregularity, jury misconduct, newly-discovered evidence, insufficient evidence […]

A plaintiff facing a soon-to-expire limitations period may feel a rush of relief when the complaint is clocked in to the clerk’s office on time and the summons is ready […]