July 26, 2014

North Carolina Court of Appeals Rule 60(b) Motion Cannot Be Used to Attack An Order That a Party Failed to Appeal

In Hodgin v. United Community Bank, the COA emphasized the importance of the proper procedure for appealing a final order entered by the trial court.

The Hodgins took out two loans from Community Bank to finance construction of a home on a parcel of land they owned.  The Hodgins only intended for the 1.62 acres of that parcel to serve as collateral for the loans, but the Deed of Trust included an adjacent 2.09 acre tract of land as well.  The Hodgins failed to make their loan payments, and the bank agreed to refinance both loans with a new deed of trust.  Again the Hodgins intended for the deed of trust to only go to the 1.62 parcel of land, but it in fact encumbered the 2.09 acre tract as well.

The Hodgins discovered this alleged error, and the bank executed a release deed, but that deed actually only released the 2.09 acre tract of land from the first deed of trust, which was no longer in effect due to the second deed of trust.

The Hodgins again defaulted on the loan, and the bank foreclosed on both parcels of land.  The Hodgins brought suit against the bank, claiming that it led them to believe that the 2.09 acre tract had been released from the more recent deed of trust.

The bank filed a motion to compel arbitration, and the Hodgins agreed to arbitrate the matter.  The arbitrator found in favor of the Hodgins, holding that the parties did not intend to include the 2.09 acre parcel as collateral for any of the loans, and awarded them the fair market value of the 2.09 acres.  The court confirmed the arbitration award, and the Hodgins filed a motion for appropriate relief from that order pursuant to Rule 60(b).   The trial court granted that motion, vacating the arbitration award and granting the Hodgins a de novo trial on all of their claims.

The COA reversed the trial court’s order granting the motion for appropriate relief, finding that such a motion was an improper substitute for a notice of appeal from the order confirming the arbitration award, and that “a Rule 60(b) motion cannot in any circumstances be used to collaterally attack a final order from which a party chose not to appeal.”  A timely notice of appeal or a motion pursuant to Rule 59(a)(8) (not Rule 60(b)) was the proper method for seeking relief for errors of law.  The COA also noted that the trial court’s order granting the motion for appropriate relief was improper because Rule 60(b) only allows for such relief for newly discovered evidence.  Here, the evidence asserted to be “new” by the Hodgins was previously known to them and could have been introduced during arbitration, but wasn’t. 

Copyright © 2014 Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Amanda G Ray, Womble Carlyle Law Firm, Litigation Attorney

Amanda is an associate in the Business Litigation practice group of Womble Carlyle's Raleigh office. Amanda's diverse practice includes representing clients in commercial contract disputes, unfair and deceptive trade practice claims, consumer finance and residential lending claims, and disputes arising out of trust and estate administration. She has participated in mediations, arbitrations, administrative hearings, and several significant appellate cases. Amanda is a primary editor/writer for Womble Carlyle's highly-regarded ...


Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.