Nat'l Enters. Inc. v. Hughes ( 2014 )

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute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).