Nat'l Enters. Inc. v. Hughes

• Court: Court of Appeals of North Carolina
• Decided: February 4, 2014
• Docket: 13-820
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of A p p e l l a t e P r o c e d u r e .

NO. COA13-820 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS

Filed: 4 February 2014

NATIONAL ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED, a California corporation, Plaintiff,

v. Orange County No. 12 CVS 1841 JOHN W. HUGHES a/k/a JOHN W. HUGHES, III and KATHRYN HUGHES a/k/a KATHRYN H. HUGHES, Defendants.

Appeal by defendants from order entered 12 April 2013 by

Judge Robert H. Hobgood in Orange County Superior Court. Heard

in the Court of Appeals 9 December 2013.

Vann Attorneys, by James A. Beck, II, for plaintiff- appellee.

Northen Blue, LLP, by David M. Rooks, for defendants- appellants.

MARTIN, Chief Judge.

Defendants John W. Hughes, III and Kathryn H. Hughes appeal

from an order granting plaintiff National Enterprises

Incorporated’s motion to enforce its foreign judgment against -2- defendants in North Carolina. For the reasons stated herein, we

affirm.

In February 1995, plaintiff obtained a judgment for

$141,029.56 against defendants in Florida. In March 2007,

plaintiff sought to enforce the 1995 judgment in North Carolina

against defendant John W. Hughes, III. In response, defendant

filed a motion for relief, notice of defense, motion for stay,

and motion to strike on 22 March 2007. On 28 March 2007,

plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action. In an order entered

on 23 April 2007, the trial court concluded that the 1995

judgment could not be enforced in North Carolina because it was

barred by the ten-year statute of limitations prescribed in

N.C.G.S. § 1-47(1).

In November 2012, a new judgment was entered against

defendants in Florida based upon the 1995 judgment. On 23

January 2013, plaintiff filed a notice of filing of foreign

judgment, pursuant to the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign

Judgments Act, in North Carolina. Defendants filed a motion for

relief from and notice of defense to foreign judgment on 11

February 2013, asserting that N.C.G.S. § 1-47(1) and plaintiff’s

action in 2007 to enforce the 1995 judgment barred enforcement

of the foreign judgment in North Carolina. Plaintiff filed a

motion for enforcement of foreign judgment on 22 February 2013. -3- On 12 April 2013, the trial court entered an order denying

defendants’ motion and defense and declaring that the foreign

judgment was entitled to full faith and credit in North

Carolina. Defendants appeal.

_________________________

Defendants’ sole argument on appeal is that the trial court

committed reversible error by denying defendants’ motion and

defense and granting plaintiff’s motion for enforcement of the

foreign judgment. Defendants argue that N.C.G.S. § 1-47(1) and

the order entered with respect to plaintiff’s action in 2007 to

enforce the 1995 judgment bar the present action to enforce the

foreign judgment. We disagree.

A foreign judgment, filed pursuant to the Uniform

Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, “has the same effect and

is subject to the same defenses as a judgment of this State and

shall be enforced or satisfied in like manner.” N.C. Gen. Stat.

§ 1C–1703(c) (2013). N.C.G.S. § 1-47(1) bars an action to

enforce “a judgment or decree of any court of the United States”

after ten years from the date of its entry. N.C. Gen. Stat. §

1-47(1) (2013). The statute of limitations “affects foreign and

domestic judgments alike” and thus bars an action under the

Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act to enforce a

foreign judgment that is more than ten years old. See Wener v. -4- Perrone & Cramer Realty, Inc., 137 N.C. App. 362, 364, 366, 528

S.E.2d 65, 66–68 (2000) (holding that N.C.G.S. § 1-47(1) barred

an action to enforce a Florida judgment that was over ten years

old).

Florida law, on the other hand, imposes a twenty-year

statute of limitations period for an action to enforce a

judgment. Fla. Stat. § 95.11(1) (2002). If the statute of

limitations period has not yet expired on a judgment, “the

judgment creditor can start the limitation period anew by

bringing an action upon the judgment and obtaining a new

judgment.” Adams v. Adams, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D650, D650, 691

So. 2d 10, 11 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997) (internal quotation

marks omitted); see also Raccoon Valley Inv. Co. v. Toler, 32

N.C. App. 461, 463, 232 S.E.2d 717, 718 (1977) (“[Under North

Carolina law,] the only procedure now recognized by which the

owner of a judgment may obtain a new judgment for the amount

owing thereon is by an independent action on the prior

judgment.”). Where a judgment creditor obtains a new judgment

within the applicable statute of limitations, the new judgment

extinguishes the original judgment. See Palm Coast Recovery

Corp. v. Moore, 184 N.C. App. 550, 552, 646 S.E.2d 438, 440

(2007). The judgment creditor may therefore then commence an

action under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act to -5- enforce the new judgment within ten years from the date of its

entry. See id. at 551–52, 646 S.E.2d at 439–40 (“Where a

judgment creditor obtained a new judgment in 2005 in the State

of Florida, based upon a previous 1990 judgment, an action to

register the judgment in North Carolina [in 2006] pursuant to

the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act was timely

filed.”).

While the ten-year statute of limitations period in North

Carolina had expired when plaintiff sought to enforce the 1995

judgment in 2007, the twenty-year statute of limitations period

had not yet run on the judgment in Florida. As a result,

plaintiff properly filed a new action based upon the 1995

judgment in 2012 in Florida to start the limitations period

anew. See Adams, 22 Fla. L. Weekly at D650, 691 So. 2d at 11.

Because the 2012 judgment extinguished the 1995 judgment,

plaintiff’s present action under the Uniform Enforcement of

Foreign Judgments Act sought to enforce the 2012 judgment and

not the 1995 judgment. See Palm Coast, 184 N.C. App. at 552,

646 S.E.2d at 440. The present action was thus timely filed

within the ten-year statute of limitations in North Carolina.

See id.

Moreover, contrary to defendants’ assertion, the doctrine

of res judicata does not bar the present action. Although the -6- trial court entered an order with respect to plaintiff’s action

in 2007 to enforce the 1995 judgment in North Carolina, the

order has no preclusive effect on the present action because it

is not another action to enforce the 1995 judgment; but rather,

it is the first action plaintiff has brought to enforce the 2012

judgment. See NationsBank of N.C. v. Am. Doubloon Corp., 125

N.C. App. 494, 503, 481 S.E.2d 387, 392 (“Res judicata, or claim

preclusion, prevents a party, or one in privity with that party,

from bringing a suit twice on the same claim or cause of action

when a final judgment on the merits has been entered in the

first suit.”), disc. review denied, 346 N.C. 282, 487 S.E.2d 551

(1997). Accordingly, we hold that res judicata does not

preclude the present action, and the trial court properly

granted plaintiff’s motion to enforce the foreign judgment.

Affirmed.

Judges ERVIN and McCULLOUGH concur.

Report per Rule 30(e).