262 N.C. App. 251
N.C. Ct. App.2018Background
- In 2006, summary judgment was entered against defendants Phillip Marsh and Ashley Jenkins in favor of QUB Studios, LLC and Eric Robert, creating a judgment for damages. Plaintiffs later sought enforcement of that judgment in 2016.
- Plaintiffs filed a 2016 complaint seeking payment (treble damages and fees); Marsh was defaulted; Jenkins answered and moved to dismiss (Rule 12(b)(1),(2),(4),(6)), moved for Rule 60 relief from the 2006 judgment, and requested a jury trial.
- The trial court initially granted dismissal as to Jenkins for failure to state a claim and denied plaintiffs’ summary judgment; plaintiffs then moved to reconsider and to amend, asserting a clerical pleading error (an exhibit was attached but not referenced).
- The trial court set aside its prior order, allowed amendment, and later granted plaintiffs’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, denied Jenkins’ various motions (including his Rule 60(b) and dismissal motions), and awarded damages; Jenkins appealed.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals considered: (1) whether the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain plaintiffs’ Rule 60 motion; (2) whether the court properly granted plaintiffs’ Rule 60 relief and denied Jenkins’ Rule 60 motions; (3) whether the amended complaint related back; (4) denial of Jenkins’ 12(b) motions (subject-matter, personal jurisdiction, failure to state a claim); (5) grant of judgment on the pleadings; and (6) denial of Jenkins’ request for written findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Court had jurisdiction to hear plaintiffs’ Rule 60 motion | Motion sought relief for clerical mistake (exhibit not referenced), so Rule 60 applies | Rule 60 cannot be used to correct errors of law, so court lacked jurisdiction | Court: plaintiffs’ motion premised on clerical error (not law); trial court had jurisdiction to consider it |
| Granting plaintiffs’ Rule 60 relief; denying Jenkins’ Rule 60 motions | Plaintiffs: relief appropriate under Rule 60(b)(1) and (6) for inadvertent clerical error | Jenkins: plaintiffs presented no evidence to meet Rule 60(b) standards; his own Rule 60 motions sought relief from earlier, separate judgment | Court: granting plaintiffs’ Rule 60(b)(6) not challenged on appeal; Jenkins’ Rule 60 motions impermissible collateral attack on separate case and properly denied |
| Amendment and relation back / statute of limitations | Amended complaint merely fixed reference to attached exhibit; original complaint gave notice, so relation back under Rule 15(c) applies | Amendment would be time-barred and prejudicial; does not relate back | Court: amended pleading related back to original; statute of limitations satisfied; amendment permitted |
| Motions to dismiss (12(b)(1),(2),(6)) — subject-matter, personal jurisdiction, failure to state a claim | Plaintiffs: enforcement action of prior judgment was proper; amended complaint relates back; Jenkins previously participated in prior case | Jenkins: no subject-matter/personal jurisdiction; amended complaint time-barred and fails to state a claim | Court: trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction; personal jurisdiction proven by Jenkins’ participation in prior Guilford County case; amended complaint related back; dismissals denied |
| Judgment on the pleadings | Plaintiffs: no material facts in dispute; prior summary judgment against defendants is binding | Jenkins: raised affirmative defenses and argued court converted Rule 12(c) to summary judgment by taking judicial notice | Court: no material factual disputes; judicial notice of prior record appropriate and did not convert to summary judgment; judgment on the pleadings proper |
| Request for written findings of fact | Jenkins: Rule 52(a) request for findings when ruling on Rule 60 motion | Plaintiffs: decision was legal; findings unnecessary | Court: where judgment as a matter of law is appropriate, findings are not required; denial not error |
Key Cases Cited
- McKoy v. McKoy, 202 N.C. App. 509 (question of subject-matter jurisdiction reviewed de novo)
- Hagwood v. Odom, 88 N.C. App. 513 (Rule 60(b) does not provide relief for errors of law)
- Sink v. Easter, 288 N.C. 183 (Rule 60(b) review is committed to trial court’s discretion)
- Briley v. Farabow, 348 N.C. 537 (distinguishing attorney error warranting Rule 60(b)(1) relief from mere negligence)
- Clayton v. N.C. State Bar, 168 N.C. App. 717 (collateral attacks on separate judgments are impermissible)
- Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308 (courts may consider documents incorporated by reference and matters subject to judicial notice when ruling on pleadings)