Crotts v. Camel Pawn Shop, Inc.

192 S.E.2d 55, 16 N.C. App. 392, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 1714
CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina
DecidedOctober 25, 1972
Docket7219SC662
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 192 S.E.2d 55 (Crotts v. Camel Pawn Shop, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Crotts v. Camel Pawn Shop, Inc., 192 S.E.2d 55, 16 N.C. App. 392, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 1714 (N.C. Ct. App. 1972).

Opinion

BROCK, Judge.

Plaintiff appeals from the trial judge’s order vacating an entry of default.

An entry of default is only an interlocutory act looking toward the subsequent entry of a final judgment by default and is more in the nature of a formal matter; 6 J. Moore, Federal Practice, par. 55.10 [1], p. 1827 (2d Ed. 1966) ; and a court might feel justified in setting aside an entry of default on a showing that would not move it to set aside a default judgment. Moore, supra, par. 55.10 [2], p. 1831; see Whaley v. Rhodes, 10 N.C. App. 109, 177 S.E. 2d 735.

When an entry of default has been made by the Clerk of Superior Court, a motion to vacate that entry is governed by the provisions of Rule 55(d) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides as follows:

“(d) Setting aside default. — For good cause shown the court may set aside an entry of default, and, if a judgment by default has been entered, the judge may set it aside in accordance with Rule 60(b).” (Emphasis added.)

This court has previously stated that to set aside a default all that need be shown is good cause: “There is no neces *394 sity for a finding of excusable neglect in granting a motion to set aside and vacate the entry of default.” Whaley v. Rhodes, supra.

The trial judge in this case granted the motion vacating the entry of default after a hearing before counsel for plaintiff and defendant. The determination of whether a good cause exists rests in the sound discretion of the trial judge. Whaley v. Rhodes, supra. It is well settled that action by the trial judge as to a matter within his judicial discretion will not be disturbed unless a clear abuse of discretion is shown. Whaley v. Rhodes, supra; Mull v. Mull, 13 N.C. App. 154, 185 S.E. 2d 14.

Appellant has not favored us with the evidence heard by the trial judge upon defendant’s motion to vacate the entry of default. Where appellant fails to bring the evidence up for review, we presume the trial judge acted within his discretion on evidence showing good cause to vacate the entry of default. In re Warrick, 1 N.C. App. 387, 161 S.E. 2d 630; Cobb v. Cobb, 10 N.C. App. 739, 179 S.E. 2d 870.

Before depositing its answer with the clerk defendant did not move under Rule 6(b) for enlargement of time to file answer, therefore, its tardily deposited answer did not constitute a bar to the entry of default. Under the circumstances, the answer was merely proffered for filing. Defendant has not yet made a motion under Rule 6(b) for enlargement of time to file answer, and, therefore, no answer has been filed. The portion of the judgment which states “so that the case may be decided on its merits” constitutes surplusage and is disregarded.

Insofar as the order appealed from vacates the entry of default the same is

Affirmed.

Judges Morris and Hedrick concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Emick v. Sunset Beach & Twin Lakes, Inc.
638 S.E.2d 490 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2006)
Byrd v. Mortenson
302 S.E.2d 809 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1983)
Silverman v. Tate
301 S.E.2d 732 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1983)
First Union National Bank v. Wilson
300 S.E.2d 19 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1983)
Byrd v. Mortenson
298 S.E.2d 170 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1982)
In re the Foreclosure of the Deed of Trust or Mortgage of Burgess
291 S.E.2d 323 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1982)
Looper v. Looper
277 S.E.2d 78 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1981)
Peebles v. Moore
275 S.E.2d 833 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1981)
Peebles v. Moore
269 S.E.2d 694 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1980)
Bailey v. Gooding
263 S.E.2d 634 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1980)
Hecht Realty, Inc. v. Hastings
262 S.E.2d 858 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1980)
Frye v. Wiles
235 S.E.2d 889 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1977)
Moseley v. BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY
198 S.E.2d 36 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1973)
Hubbard v. Lumley
195 S.E.2d 330 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1973)
Crotts v. Camel Pawn Shop, Inc.
192 S.E.2d 835 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
192 S.E.2d 55, 16 N.C. App. 392, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 1714, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crotts-v-camel-pawn-shop-inc-ncctapp-1972.