Roach v. Smith

402 S.E.2d 173, 102 N.C. App. 482, 1991 N.C. App. LEXIS 443
Court of Appeals of North Carolina·Decided April 2, 1991·No. No. 903SC710·Published

Opinion

HEDRICK, Chief Judge.

We are unaware of any rule that authorizes any judge, pursuant to a motion made in the cause, to order the payment of prejudgment interest or postjudgment interest on a judgment entered more than four years before the motion in the cause is made.

We hold Judge Llewellyn had no authority to entertain or allow the motions in this case, and said motions should have been dismissed. Home Health and Hospice Care, Inc. v. Meyer, 88 N.C. App. 257, 362 S.E.2d 870 (1987). However, we treat the order denying the motions as one dismissing them, and affirm it.

Affirmed.

Judges COZORT and LEWIS concur.

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

Roach v. Smith, 402 S.E.2d 173, 102 N.C. App. 482, 1991 N.C. App. LEXIS 443 (N.C. Ct. App. 1991).

402 S.E.2d 173 (Roach v. Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Home Health & Hospice Care, Inc. v. Meyer
362 S.E.2d 870 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1987)