Byrd v. Mortenson, 45A83
| Decision Date | 31 May 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 45A83,45A83 |
| Citation | 302 S.E.2d 809,308 N.C. 536 |
| Parties | Earl H. BYRD, Jr. v. Rodney A. MORTENSON, M.D., P.A. and Rodney A. Mortensen, M.D. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Purser, Cheshire, Manning & Parker by Joseph B. Cheshire, V, and Barbara Anne Smith, and Bode, Bode & Call by Robert V. Bode, Raleigh, for plaintiff-appellant.
Henson & Henson by Perry C. Henson and Perry C. Henson, Jr., Greensboro, for defendants-appellees.
The questions presented by this appeal are (1) whether the trial judge properly refused to set aside the entries of default and (2) whether it was error for the trial judge to deny defendants' motion for additional time to file answer.
Rule 55(d) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the trial court may set aside an entry of default "for good cause shown." G.S. 1A-1, Rule 55(d). The determination of whether an adequate basis exists for setting aside the entry of default rests in the sound discretion of the trial judge. Frye v. Wiles, 33 N.C.App. 581, 235 S.E.2d 889 (1977); Howell v. Haliburton, 22 N.C.App. 40, 205 S.E.2d 617 (1974); Crotts v. Camel Pawn Shop, Inc., 16 N.C.App. 392, 192 S.E.2d 55, cert. denied, 282 N.C. 425, 192 S.E.2d 835 (1972).
Defendants' motion to set aside and vacate entry of default under Rule 55(d) was here coupled with a motion to enlarge the time in which to file answer under Rule 6(b). Under Rule 6(b), a trial judge may permit an enlargement of time to file answer "where the failure to act [is] the result of excusable neglect." G.S. 1A-1, Rule 6(b) (emphasis added).
The Court of Appeals found the facts presented in instant case so compelling that it chose to make the extraordinary ruling that the trial judge abused his discretion in refusing to set aside the entries of default and in denying defendants' motion for extension of time to file answer.
We do not reach these questions decided by the Court of Appeals because it appears that rather than exercising his discretion, the trial judge erroneously ruled as a matter of law that defendants had not demonstrated "good cause" to justify setting aside the entries of default against them. There is nothing in the record to support a conclusion that Judge Bailey discretionarily refused to set aside the entries of default. We therefore express no opinion concerning the Court of Appeals' decision that the trial judge's refusal to set aside the entries of default and permit defendants to file answer...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Broughton v. McClatchy Newspapers, Inc.
...to the sound discretion of the trial court and its ruling will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. Byrd v. Mortenson, 308 N.C. 536, 302 S.E.2d 809 (1983). Defendants had previously filed a provisional answer to plaintiff's complaint on 4 February 1997. It is clear from the recor......
-
Henry v. Deen
...these issues must be remanded to the trial court in order that it may rule upon them in light of this opinion. See Byrd v. Mortenson, 308 N.C. 536, 302 S.E.2d 809 (1983). Since the original complaint gave the defendants full notice of the nature of the civil conspiracy claim and the matters......
-
Harris v. Maready
...discretion on this question in accordance with this opinion. See Henry v. Deen, 310 N.C. 75, 310 S.E.2d 326 (1984); Byrd v. Mortenson, 308 N.C. 536, 302 S.E.2d 809 (1983). III. We next consider the Court of Appeals' holding that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to allow the ......
-
State v. Cotton
...the prejudiced party is entitled to have the matter reconsidered. Henry v. Deen, 310 N.C. 75, 310 S.E.2d 326 (1984); Byrd v. Mortenson, 308 N.C. 536, 302 S.E.2d 809 (1983); Capps v. Lynch, 253 N.C. 18, 116 S.E.2d 137 (1960); 1 Brandis on North Carolina Evidence § 28 (2d rev. ed. 1982). If n......