BURTON v. BLANTON

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 9119DC817

Attorney(S)

Ottway Burton, P.A., by Ottway Burton, pro se. Central Carolina Legal Services, by James C. Lee, for defendant-appellant.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Plaintiff Ottway Burton, P.A. instituted an action to renew and enforce a confession of judgment obtained from defendant Stephen L. Blanton for legal services performed. Defendant filed a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(4) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, asserting that the judgment was void under the Retail Installment Sales Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. 25A-18. The trial court denied the motion, and defendant appealed the denial to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether a motion under Rule 60(b)(4) is a proper procedural vehicle to challenge the validity of a confession of judgment obtained by plaintiff.
Whether the confession of judgment is void under the Retail Installment Sales Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. 25A-18, thereby justifying relief under Rule 60(b)(4).

Arguments of the Parties

Defendant-Appellant's Arguments

The confession of judgment obtained by plaintiff is void under the Retail Installment Sales Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. 25A-18, which applies to credit transactions of this nature.
Accordingly, defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his Rule 60(b)(4) motion for relief from judgment.

Plaintiff-Appellee's Arguments

Rule 60(b)(4) motions are only proper to attack void judgments, and the confession of judgment here is not void because the district court had jurisdiction and authority.
The Retail Installment Sales Act does not apply to confessions of judgment procured by members of the State Bar.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
In re Brown, 23 N.C. App. 109, 208 S.E.2d 282 (1974)	Definition of "void" judgment as one lacking jurisdiction or authority to render judgment.	Used to clarify that mere errors in law or fact do not render a judgment void.
Hayes v. Evergo Telephone Co., 100 N.C. App. 474, 397 S.E.2d 325 (1990)	Clarification on when a judgment is void under Rule 60(b)(4).	Supported the court’s determination that the confession of judgment was not void.
Drummond v. Cordell, 73 N.C. App. 438, 326 S.E.2d 292 (1985), aff'd 315 N.C. 385, 337 S.E.2d 850 (1986)	Judgment proper on its face is not void.	Applied to affirm that the confession of judgment was valid on its face.
Daniels v. Montgomery Mut. Ins. Co., 320 N.C. 669, 360 S.E.2d 772 (1987)	Void judgments are nullities and may be attacked at any time via Rule 60(b)(4).	Distinguished void judgments from erroneous judgments to determine proper remedy.
Town of Sylva v. Gibson, 51 N.C. App. 545, 277 S.E.2d 115 (1981)	Erroneous judgments must be corrected by appeal, not Rule 60(b) motions.	Supported the court’s holding that Rule 60(b)(4) was an improper vehicle to challenge the judgment’s validity if the judgment was merely erroneous.
Chicopee, Inc. v. Sims Metal Works, Inc., 98 N.C. App. 423, 391 S.E.2d 211 (1990)	Rule 60(b) motions cannot substitute for appeal in correcting erroneous judgments.	Reinforced procedural limitations on relief from judgment.
J.D. Dawson Co. v. Robertson Marketing, Inc., 93 N.C. App. 62, 376 S.E.2d 254 (1989)	Distinction between void and erroneous judgments in context of Rule 60(b) motions.	Supported the court’s procedural analysis.
Hinshaw v. Wright, 105 N.C. App. 158, 412 S.E.2d 138 (1992)	A judgment will stand if the correct result was reached, even if based on faulty reasoning.	Used to affirm the judgment despite the court not addressing the substantive question.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by analyzing whether Rule 60(b)(4) was the appropriate procedural mechanism for defendant to challenge the confession of judgment. Rule 60(b)(4) permits relief only from judgments that are void, which means those rendered by a court lacking jurisdiction over the parties or subject matter or lacking authority to enter the judgment. The court emphasized that errors of law or fact do not render a judgment void but merely erroneous. Erroneous judgments must be challenged by appeal, not by Rule 60 motions.

The court found that the district court had proper jurisdiction and authority to enter the confession of judgment and that no jurisdictional defects were raised. The confession of judgment was not improper on its face and thus was not void. Because the judgment was not void, defendant’s Rule 60(b)(4) motion was an improper procedural vehicle for relief. The court therefore affirmed the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion without reaching the substantive question of whether the Retail Installment Sales Act applied to confessions of judgment obtained by attorneys.

Holding and Implications

The court affirmed the trial court's denial of defendant's Rule 60(b)(4) motion for relief from judgment.

The decision directly results in the confession of judgment remaining enforceable against defendant. The court’s ruling clarifies that Rule 60(b)(4) motions may only be used to attack void judgments, not erroneous ones, and emphasizes the necessity of appeal to correct errors of law. No new precedent was established beyond reaffirming established procedural principles regarding Rule 60(b)(4) and the distinction between void and erroneous judgments.

Show full summary ...

OTTWAY BURTON, P.A., PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE v. STEPHEN L. BLANTON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

Rules of Civil Procedure 60.2 (NCI3d) — confession of judgment for legal services — judgment not void — Rule 60(b) motion properly dismissed In plaintiff's action to renew and enforce a confession of judgment he obtained from defendant for legal services performed, the trial court properly denied defendant's motion for relief from judgment filed pursuant to N.C.G.S. 1A-1 Rule 60(b)(4), since void judgments may be attacked by Rule 60(b) motions; erroneous judgments may be corrected only by appeal; and the judgment in this case was not void in that the district court had jurisdiction to issue the confession of judgment and the authority to adjudicate the rights and liabilities of the parties involved, no jurisdictional question was ever raised, and the confession of judgment was not improper on its face.

Am Jur 2d, Judgments 671.

Plaintiff instituted an action to renew and enforce a confession of judgment he obtained from defendant for legal services performed. Defendant sought to have that judgment set aside as void under the Retail Installment Sales Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. 25A-18. Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 1A-1, Rule 60(b)(4) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, defendant filed a motion for relief from judgment. The trial court denied defendant's motion. Defendant appealed.

WELLS, Judge.

In finding the confession of judgment to be valid, the trial court held that N.C. Gen. Stat. 25A was inapplicable to confessions of judgment procured by members of the State Bar. Defendant contends that the trial court erred in this respect. He argues that N.C. Gen. Stat. 25A-18 of the Retail Installment Sales Act renders confessions of judgment void for credit transactions of this nature and that his Rule 60(b)(4) motion should have been granted. Before reaching the substantive question of whether the Act prohibits professionals from obtaining confessions of judgment, we must first determine the propriety of the relief sought pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4). If we determine the defendant chose an improper procedure to challenge the confession of judgment, our inquiry ceases and it becomes unnecessary to resolve defendant's substantive question.

N.C. Gen. Stat. 1A-1, Rule 60(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides that upon proper motion, a "court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding." Specifically, defendant seeks relief under Rule 60(b)(4) which allows relief from a judgment that is void. A Rule 60(b)(4) motion is only proper where a judgment is "void" as that term is defined by the law. A judgment will not be deemed void merely for an error in law, fact, or procedure. A judgment is void only when the issuing court has no jurisdiction over the parties or subject matter in question or has no authority to render the judgment entered. In re Brown, 23 N.C. App. 109, 208 S.E.2d 282 (1974); see Hayes v. Evergo Telephone Co., 100 N.C. App. 474, 397 S.E.2d 325 (1990). A judgment, if proper on its face, is not void. Drummond v. Cordell, 73 N.C. App. 438, 326 S.E.2d 292 (1985), aff'd, 315 N.C. 385, 337 S.E.2d 850 (1986).

The correct procedure for attacking a judgment is dependent upon the type of defect asserted. If a judgment is void, it is a nullity and may be attacked at any time. Daniels v. Montgomery Mut. Ins. Co., 320 N.C. 669, 360 S.E.2d 772 (1987). Rule 60(b)(4) is an appropriate method of challenging such a judgment. An erroneous judgment, by contrast, is one entered according to proper court procedures and practices but is contrary to the law or involves a misapplication of the law. Id. As our appellate courts have consistently held, erroneous judgments may be corrected only by appeal and Rule 60(b) motions cannot be used as a substitute for appeal. Town of Sylva v. Gibson, 51 N.C. App. 545, 277 S.E.2d 115, appeal dismissed and cert. denied, 303 N.C. 319, 281 S.E.2d 659 (1981). See also Chicopee, Inc. v. Sims Metal Works, Inc., 98 N.C. App. 423, 391 S.E.2d 211 (1990); J.D. Dawson Co. v. Robertson Marketing, Inc., 93 N.C. App. 62, 376 S.E.2d 254 (1989).

Here, the district court had jurisdiction to issue the confession of judgment and it had the authority to adjudicate the rights and liabilities of the parties involved. No jurisdictional question was ever raised. Furthermore, the confession of judgment was not improper on its face. Judgments rendered by a court with proper jurisdiction and authority are presumed to be valid. Since the confession of judgment was not void, defendant may not rely upon Rule 60(b)(4) to challenge the judgment. Therefore, the trial court correctly denied defendant's motion for relief under Rule 60(b)(4). The confession of judgment, although not void, may have been erroneous (i.e., contrary to law), but we need not address this substantive issue. In limiting our review, we need not question the trial court's analysis in reaching its conclusion. A judgment under appellate review will stand if the correct result was reached, even though it was based on faulty reasoning. See Hinshaw v. Wright, 105 N.C. App. 158, 412 S.E.2d 138 (1992).

Affirmed.

Judges ORR and GREENE concur.