Coastal Production Credit Ass'n v. Goodson Farms, Inc., 834SC1193

• Decision Date: 20 November 1984
• Docket Number: No. 834SC1193,834SC1193
• Citation: 71 N.C.App. 421,322 S.E.2d 398
• Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
• Parties: COASTAL PRODUCTION CREDIT ASSOCIATION v. GOODSON FARMS, INC., J. Michael Goodson, and Wife, Greylin R. Goodson; Samuel Lieben; American Foods, Inc.; Jeff D. Johnson, III, Receiver; Federal Land Bank of Columbia, Inc.; and Commodity Credit Corp.

Page 398

322 S.E.2d 398

71 N.C.App. 421

COASTAL PRODUCTION CREDIT ASSOCIATION v. GOODSON FARMS, INC., J. Michael Goodson, and Wife, Greylin R. Goodson; Samuel Lieben; American Foods, Inc.; Jeff D Johnson, III, Receiver; Federal Land Bank of Columbia Inc.; and Commodity Credit Corp.

No. 834SC1193.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Nov. 20, 1984.

Poyner, Geraghty, Hartsfield & Townsend by Cecil W. Harrison, Jr., Raleigh, for defendants-appellants.

Wells, Blossom & Burrows by Richard F. Burrows, Wallace, for plaintiff-appellee.

JOHNSON, Judge.

Plaintiff, an agricultural credit facility, filed suit in February 1982 on a promissory note executed by the Goodson defendants (hereinafter defendants) and secured by farm real estate and equipment. In December 1982, the parties entered into a consent judgment, by which plaintiff agreed to delay collection proceedings until 16 February 1983. Defendants agreed and were ordered to pay in full at that time. Defendants defaulted again, however, and plaintiff began seizure proceedings in March 1983. On 8 March 1983, defendants tendered partial payment which plaintiff refused. The plaintiff's collection activities were temporarily halted on 9 March 1983 by a court order enjoining the seizing of the property. On 21 March 1983, the temporary restraining order was dissolved and plaintiff began seizure proceedings anew. On 30 March 1983, the trial judge entered an Order staying further collection activities by plaintiff upon the posting of a bond by defendants. Pursuant to the court order, defendants posted bond and plaintiff ceased further collection activities. Plaintiff filed a motion on 24 May 1983 for costs, in the amount of $9,038.69, incurred in the seizure, inventory and organizing of defendants' personal property for sale. The trial court granted the motion, but reduced the amount of recovery to $7,375.09. Defendants appeal from this order.

Defendants assert that the trial court was without authority to order payment of costs associated with the seizure of their property for public sale after their default of a loan repayment ordered by a consent judgment. There was statutory authority for the trial judge to order defendants to pay those costs. The authority for the court to award costs can be found in G.S. 1A-1, Rule 70, which is made applicable by the consent judgment entered into by the parties. A consent judgment is a contract between the parties entered upon the record with the approval and sanction of the court. Bland v. Bland, 21 N.C.App. 192, 195, 203 S.E.2d 639, 641 (1974). The consent judgment ordered the defendants to pay the amount of $242,379.42, together with interest on the amount of $222,212.98 at the rate of 12.25% per annum. The order gave the defendants until 4:00 p.m. on 16 February 1983 to pay the indebtedness owed to plaintiffs together with all court costs, attorney fees or other amounts ordered therein.

Where a judgment directs a party to perform a specific act and the party fails to comply within the time specified, various methods by which enforcement of the judgment may be effected are set forth in G.S. 1A-1, Rule 70. The Rule provides in parts pertinent to this dispute the following:

If a judgment directs a party to execute a conveyance of land or to deliver deeds or other documents or to perform any other specific act and the party fails to comply within the time specified, the judge may direct the act to be done at the cost of the disobedient party by some other person appointed by the judge...