Savage v. ZelentÂ
243 N.C. App. 535
N.C. Ct. App.2015Background
- Savage (plaintiff) and Zelent (defendant) lived together in Scotland; Zelent sued Savage in Scottish Sheriff Court under Family Law (Scotland) Act § 28(2)(a) seeking financial contribution; the Sheriff found for Savage after trial.
- Zelent’s counsel withdrew; she was unrepresented for post-trial proceedings (Peremptory Diet and Diet of Taxation) about costs and did not attend or appeal at any stage.
- The Scottish Auditor of Court taxed costs and the Sheriff approved an award of £148,516.75 for Savage’s solicitor fees and expenses (the “Scottish judgment”).
- Savage filed in North Carolina under the North Carolina Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act to recognize and enforce the Scottish judgment; the trial court recognized it. Zelent moved for a new trial and then appealed.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed statutory interpretation (whether the award was a judgment "for alimony, support, or maintenance") and whether recognition was barred because the foreign proceeding was fundamentally unfair or repugnant to NC public policy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Scottish award of attorney’s fees is excluded from recognition as a judgment "for alimony, support, or maintenance" under N.C.G.S. § 1C-1852(b)(3) | The Scottish award is a money judgment for attorneys’ fees and thus subject to recognition under the Recognition Act | The fee award "arose out of" a family/support claim and therefore is effectively a judgment for support excluded from recognition | The court held the award is a judgment for attorneys’ fees (not a judgment "for" support/alimony/maintenance) and is subject to recognition; statutory text and NC Comment support that exclusion is limited to judgments expressly for support |
| Whether recognition should be denied because the Scottish proceeding was fundamentally unfair or repugnant to NC public policy (N.C.G.S. § 1C-1853) | The Scottish process and Auditor’s comments show procedural unfairness, lack of integrity, and a fees regime repugnant to NC policy; recognition should be denied | Scottish procedures were followed; Zelent had notice/opportunity and failed to appeal or participate in taxation; differences in law alone do not offend NC public policy | The court held Zelent failed to prove corruption, fundamental unfairness, or a public-policy violation sufficient to deny recognition; differences in fee law do not, by themselves, make the judgment repugnant |
Key Cases Cited
- Jenner v. Ecoplus, 224 N.C. App. 275 (discusses statutory interpretation and the Recognition Act’s presumption favoring recognition)
- Akins v. Mission St. Joseph’s Health Sys., 193 N.C. App. 214 (definition and plain-meaning approach to "judgment")
- Poole v. Miller, 342 N.C. 349 (definition of judgment as final decision resolving parties’ rights)
- Applewood Props., LLC v. New S. Props. LLC, 366 N.C. 518 (rules on statutory construction and legislative intent)
- Hunt v. BP Exploration Co. (Libya) Ltd., 492 F. Supp. 885 (public-policy test for refusing recognition of foreign judgments)
- Bryson v. Cort, 193 N.C. App. 532 (confirming attorneys’ fees awards to prevailing parties in NC practice)
- Robinson v. Shue, 145 N.C. App. 60 (affirming award of attorneys’ fees in NC negligence context)