Search page/2: Rule 59

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:

*This post was amended on January 29, 2016 to add Rule 45 (subpoena) and on February 22, 2017 to specifically reference Rule 12(b)(3)

Have you ever felt like you’re playing a game of one potato, two potato when figuring out if a Rule of Civil Procedure applies to your abuse, neglect, dependency, or termination of parental rights action? Let me provide you with a guide instead.

Assume a hearing in a juvenile abuse, neglect, or dependency (AND) matter has just concluded. The judge announced the broad strokes of their ruling from the bench.  Questions about who is responsible for drafting the order, the need to circulate the order, what happens when a draft order is received by the judge, and the effect on this process if a party appears pro se are discussed in this post.

The North Carolina General Assembly recently made two important changes to Chapter 50B regarding civil domestic violence protective orders. S.L. 2017-92, “Domestic Violence Appeals and Modifications”, was effective October 1, 2017.

When must a civil order include specific findings of fact and conclusions of law?  Some types of orders must always include at least some findings; some orders need only include them if a party asks for them; and for other orders, findings of fact are inappropriate whether requested or not.  Rule 52 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure gives us the core rules, but exceptions and clarifications abound.  And, of course, some types of orders are governed by separate, more specific statutes.  Here are the fundamentals:

On Tuesday the NC Court of Appeals handed down an opinion in Crawford v. Nawrath, a Mecklenburg County case involving the calculation of damages for violation of the Residential Rental Agreement Act (RRAA). The Crawford opinion is unpublished and thus does not constitute controlling legal authority but nevertheless is interesting and informative, both procedurally and substantively.

In Ponder v. Ponder, NC App (May 3, 2016), the trial court conducted a lengthy hearing on plaintiff’s motion to renew a DVPO. Realizing the order needed numerous findings of fact to resolve the issues litigated but wanting to give plaintiff immediate protection, the trial court entered a renewal order with no findings of fact on AOC Form CV-314 and informed the parties that a more detailed supplemental order would replace the form order as soon as the court had time to complete it. Following entry of the form order, defendant appealed. The trial court then entered the supplemental order with extensive findings of fact only to have the court of appeals hold that both the form and the supplemental orders were void ab initio. The form order was void for a lack of findings and the supplemental order was void because it was entered after appeal was taken.

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,

Expedited Removal of Occupants After the Owner Dies In my last post, I focused on issues that arise in summary ejectment when either the tenant or the landlord dies. This […]