{ "id": 12130407, "name": "SECURITY CREDIT LEASING, INC., a Florida Corporation, Plaintiff v. D.J.'S OF SALISBURY, INC., a North Carolina corporation, d/b/a D.J.'s Restaurant, and LOUIE MOUROUZIDIZ, Defendants", "name_abbreviation": "Security Credit Leasing, Inc. v. D.J.'s of Salisbury, Inc.", "decision_date": "2000-11-07", "docket_number": "No. COA99-1150", "first_page": "521", "last_page": "529", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "140 N.C. App. 521" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "423 S.E.2d 780", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "784" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "333 N.C. 140", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2549548 ], "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "146" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/333/0140-01" ] }, { "cite": "436 S.E.2d 588", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "335 N.C. 234", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2532569 ], "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/335/0234-01" ] }, { "cite": "409 S.E.2d 897", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "900" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "330 N.C. 143", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2509699 ], "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "147" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/330/0143-01" ] }, { "cite": "429 S.E.2d 611", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "612-13", "parenthetical": "quoting In re Estate of Trogdon, 330 N.C. 143, 147, 409 S.E.2d 897, 900 (1991), aff'd, 335 N.C. 234, 436 S.E.2d 588 (1993)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "110 N.C. App. 438", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8525769 ], "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "440", "parenthetical": "quoting In re Estate of Trogdon, 330 N.C. 143, 147, 409 S.E.2d 897, 900 (1991), aff'd, 335 N.C. 234, 436 S.E.2d 588 (1993)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/110/0438-01" ] }, { "cite": "275 S.E.2d 833", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "302 N.C. 351", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565589 ], "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/302/0351-01" ] }, { "cite": "269 S.E.2d 694", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "698" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "48 N.C. App. 497", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8551423 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "504-05" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/48/0497-01" ] }, { "cite": "277 S.E.2d 95", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "96" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "51 N.C. App. 561", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 2645662 ], "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "563" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/51/0561-01" ] }, { "cite": "361 S.E.2d 895", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "896", "parenthetical": "quoting Lumber Co. v. Grizzard, 51 N.C. App. 561, 563, 277 S.E.2d 95, 96 (1981)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "87 N.C. App. 606", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8358867 ], "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "608", "parenthetical": "quoting Lumber Co. v. Grizzard, 51 N.C. App. 561, 563, 277 S.E.2d 95, 96 (1981)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/87/0606-01" ] }, { "cite": "325 S.E.2d 497", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "501", "parenthetical": "emphasis in original" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "72 N.C. App. 436", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526894 ], "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "441", "parenthetical": "emphasis in original" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/72/0436-01" ] }, { "cite": "302 S.E.2d 790", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "308 N.C. 488", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4707437 ], "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/308/0488-01" ] }, { "cite": "297 S.E.2d 405", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "406" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "59 N.C. App. 389", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526560 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "391" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/59/0389-01" ] }, { "cite": "429 S.E.2d 435", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "437", "parenthetical": "emphasis added" }, { "page": "437" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "110 N.C. App. 298", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8525448 ], "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/110/0298-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 767, "char_count": 18234, "ocr_confidence": 0.772, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.1251750318489489e-07, "percentile": 0.5744203619593266 }, "sha256": "b77b77bf11379cc8ae184a813b038f8a7f9936fb2e4d75180d43e1de6ae7d0e9", "simhash": "1:03291fef83c502e2", "word_count": 2956 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:18:32.795698+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges LEWIS and WALKER concur." ], "parties": [ "SECURITY CREDIT LEASING, INC., a Florida Corporation, Plaintiff v. D.J.\u2019S OF SALISBURY, INC., a North Carolina corporation, d/b/a D.J.\u2019s Restaurant, and LOUIE MOUROUZIDIZ, Defendants" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "HUNTER, Judge.\nSecurity Credit Leasing, Inc. (\u201cplaintiff\u2019) appeals the trial court\u2019s order denying its Petition and Motion to Enforce Foreign Judgment against defendant-appellees D.J.\u2019s of Salisbury, Inc., and Louie Mourouzidiz (collectively \u201cdefendants\u201d).\nThe following facts are undisputed. Plaintiff is a Florida corporation in the business of leasing security equipment. Defendant Mourouzidiz, a resident of North Carolina, is president of D.J.\u2019s of Salisbury, Inc., a North Carolina corporation doing business as a restaurant in Salisbury, North Carolina. On 12 June 1996, Mourouzidiz was approached while at D.J.\u2019s by an agent of the plaintiff who proposed leasing video surveillance equipment to the restaurant. (Plaintiff\u2019s agent was headquartered in Greensboro, North Carolina.) Defendants and plaintiff entered into a lease agreement for security equipment, which agreement included a forum-selection clause giving the State of Florida jurisdiction over any controversy arising out of the lease agreement.\nWhen plaintiff had the surveillance equipment delivered to defendants, defendants rejected the equipment as unsatisfactory, notifying plaintiff of the same. On 25 November 1996, plaintiff sued defendants in Hillsborough County, Florida for breach of contract. Although defendants were served by first class mail, defendants did not answer the Florida complaint, and on 11 August 1997, plaintiff obtained a default judgment against defendants in the Florida court. On 17 February 1998, plaintiff filed its Petition to Enforce Foreign Judgment in Rowan County, North Carolina. Defendants were properly served and in response, filed a Motion for Relief and Notice of Defenses on 7 May 1998, alleging that the State of Florida did not have personal jurisdiction over defendants at the time it rendered its judgment against them, thus the court\u2019s judgment was void. In its order denying plaintiff\u2019s motion to enforce the foreign judgment, the trial court found:\n1. . . . Plaintiff filed and Defendants were served with the complaint and summons in the underlying matter by personal service in Rowan County, North Carolina. Defendants did not answer the complaint of the plaintiff in the state of Florida and Plaintiff obtained a default and default judgment....\n6. On March 22, 1999 ... [t]his Court allowed Defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss and denied the oral motion of Plaintiff to strike Defendant\u2019s motion for relief and notice of defenses for failure to file within 30 days of service of Plaintiff\u2019s Petition to Enforce Foreign Judgment.\n7. [However,] [d]uring the same term of Superior Court, the undersigned Judge presiding reconvened the parties on March 29,1999 and entered a revised ruling pursuant to Rule 59 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, in which the Court determined that the motion to dismiss by the Defendant was waived by failure to plead in a timely manner and reinstated the Plaintiff\u2019s Petition and Motion to Enforce Foreign Judgment. Further, the Court ruled that the Defendants^] Motion for Relief and Notice of Defenses was timely and properly before the Court. The Court ordered the parties to present evidence on the merits of their respective motions at that time.\n9. The court finds that the Defendants . . . entered into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff .... Plaintiff was represented in this negotiation by an agent operating out of Greensboro, North Carolina.\n11. That the Defendant Mourouzidis [sic] is a native of Greece and immigrated to the United States at age 14. The Defendant speaks English as a second language and speaks with a markedly heavy accent, which is difficult to understand.\n12. . . . The Defendants own only one restaurant [located in Salisbury] and live in Salisbury, North Carolina.\n13. That the Defendants have no connection to the State of Florida and have not availed themselves of the protections of Florida\u2019s laws.\n14. That the lease signed by Defendants on June 12, 1996 was proffered by the Plaintiff and was pre-printed by or for Plaintiff with terms on both the front and reverse sides.\n15. That the specific clause consenting to jurisdiction in Florida is contained on the reverse side of the lease in smaller typeface than used on the front side, at the very bottom of the page as the last clause. The clause is written in technical legal terminology. The second page of the lease is not signed or initialed by the Defendants.\n16. That the provisions relating to jurisdiction in Florida in the lease were not highlighted or explained to the Defendants by the Plaintiff or its agents. Plaintiff did not submit any evidence that the Defendants were aware of this provision or of its significance.\n17. That the consent to jurisdiction clause included in the Plaintiff\u2019s lease contract executed by the Defendants was the product of unequal bargaining power and that enforcement of that clause would be unfair and unreasonable as to both Defendants.\n18. That based on the foregoing findings, the Court finds an ultimate fact that the matter before the Court was not fully and fairly litigated in the State of Florida in regards to personal jurisdiction.\nTherefore, the trial court concluded:\n2. That the notice filed by the Plaintiff with its original Petition was insufficient as to both Defendants; however, this defect was waived by the failure of the Defendants to properly raise the issue in their pleadings.\n3. That the Motion for Relief and Notice of Defenses filed by the Defendants was timely and not barred by any statute.\n5. That there was not a full, fair, and final litigation on the matters pertaining to jurisdiction in this cause in the State of Florida.\n6. That the clause in the lease between the parties ostensibly consenting the Defendants to jurisdiction in Florida courts is unenforceable because it is unfair, unreasonable, and was procured as a result of unequal bargaining power favoring the Plaintiff and therefore the judgement in the State of Florida entered in this cause against the Defendants in the State of Florida is not entitled to Full Faith and Credit as a judgement in this State pursuant to NCGS \u00a7 1C-1701 et seq.\nIn the record, plaintiff preserved four assignments of error all of which rely on the notion that defendants\u2019 Motion for Relief and Notice of Defenses was time-barred pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1C-1701 et seq. (the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, hereinafter, \u201cthe Act\u201d). Consequently, defendants preserved two cross-assignments of error. Due to our disposition of the case, we need only address whether, in fact, the Act \u2014 specifically \u00a7 1C-1704\u2014 serves as a statute of limitation for defendants to file their Motion for Relief and Notice of Defenses. Because we do not find the statute to be one of limitation for a defendant-debtor, we affirm the trial court\u2019s ruling.\nIn its brief to this Court, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in its interpretation of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 lC-1704(b) because the statute plainly gives a defendant-debtor a maximum of thirty (30) days in which to seek relief from a foreign judgment. Furthermore, plaintiff contends that where, as here, defendant-debtor does not respond in the thirty (30) day time period, defendant-debtor is time-barred from later doing so. Although we find this an interesting argument, we are unpersuaded.\nWe recognize the statutes under the Act must be read in para materia in order to ascertain the regulations and allowances provided under the Act. Plaintiff\u2019s interpretation aside, in actuality N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 lC-1703(b) (1999) states that:\n(b) Upon the filing of the foreign judgment and the affidavit, the foreign judgment shall be docketed and indexed in the same manner as a judgment of this State; however, no execution shall issue upon the foreign judgment nor shall any other proceeding be taken for its enforcement until the expiration of 30 days from the date upon which notice of filing is served in accordance with G.S. 1C-1704.\nId. (emphasis added). Thus, we conclude that the thirty day limitation period is not one barring a defendant-debtor\u2019s response but instead the limitation period is specifically set to bar a plaintiff-creditor from obtaining a foreign judgment against one of our state\u2019s citizens and then immediately (within thirty days) being able to enforce it without that defendant-debtor being afforded the notice required by due process. Furthermore, in keeping with our interpretation of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1C-1703\u2019s thirty day limitation period, we note our statutes clearly go on to set out what a plaintiff-creditor must do in order to proceed with enforcing its obtained judgment:\n(a) Promptly upon the filing of a foreign judgment and affidavit, the judgment creditor shall serve the notice of filing ... on the judgment debtor....\n(b) The notice shall set forth the name and address of the judgment creditor, of his attorney if any, and of the clerk\u2019s office in which the foreign judgment is filed in this State, and shall state that the judgment attached thereto has been filed in that office, that the judgment debtor has 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice to seek relief from the enforcement of the judgment, and that if the judgment is not satisfied and no such relief is sought within that 30 days, the judgment will be enforced in this State in the same manner as any judgment of this State.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 lC-1704(a), (b) (1999) (emphasis added). Thus again, we are convinced that the Act\u2019s thirty day limitation at issue is a \u201cwaiting period\u201d \u2014 a restriction on when plaintiff-creditors may act and not on when defendant-debtors may not.\nNevertheless, to bolster its argument to this Court, plaintiff cites Lust v. Fountain of Life, Inc., 110 N.C. App. 298, 429 S.E.2d 435 (1993), in which this Court stated,\nIf the judgment debtor takes no action within thirty days of receipt of the notice to delay enforcement of the judgment, \u201cthe judgment will be enforced in this State in the same manner as any judgment of this State.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 lC-1704(b). To delay enforcement of the judgment, the judgment debtor may \u201cfile a motion of relief from, or notice of defense to,\u201d the judgment on grounds as permitted in the Act. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 lC-1705(a).\nId. at 300, 429 S.E.2d at 437 (emphasis added). However, we do not agree that Lust stands for the premise asserted by plaintiff.\nIn Lust, there was no issue as to whether defendant-debtor was time-barred from filing a motion for relief because the record clearly reflected that defendants filed their response on the thirtieth day. There is, therefore, nothing in the facts of Lust to assist plaintiff in persuading this Court that it should hold the present defendants time-barred from filing their notice of defenses. Instead, we find the passage from which plaintiff quotes dispositive in that, although the court stated that \u201cthe judgment [would] be enforced\u201d where the debtor took no action within the thirty day notice period, the court continued by further stating that in order for defendant-debtor to \u201cdelay enforcement\u201d he may file a motion for relief from or notice of defense to the enforcement. Again, we find no issue of time limitation raised by the court as to when defendant-debtor had to file his motion or notice; we only find that after thirty days passed \u2014 without defendant-debtor filing a written response, plaintiff-creditor could then move for enforcement. Id. at 300, 429 S.E.2d at 437. Therefore, we hold that as long as defendant-debtor acts before enforcement, defendant-debtor could properly delay enforcement by filing his motion for relief and/or notice of defenses. Id.\nFurthermore, we are reminded that our courts \u201care constrained by the full faith and credit clause to treat foreign judgments the same as domestic judgments. Boyles v. Boyles, 59 N.C. App. 389, 297 S.E.2d 405 (1982), aff\u2019d, 308 N.C. 488, 302 S.E.2d 790 (1983). They do not receive extra deference.\u201d White v. Graham, 72 N.C. App. 436, 441, 325 S.E.2d 497, 501 (1985) (emphasis in original). Accordingly, if defendant-debtors of default judgments rendered here in North Carolina are not bound by a thirty-day statute of limitations, then defendant-debtors of foreign default judgments cannot be held to a higher standard. Id.\nUnder the North Carolina statute governing domestic default judgments, N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 55, the only time limitation given is the same thirty day \u201cwaiting period\u201d (as with foreign judgments), required of a plaintiff-creditor IF:\nThe [plaintiff\u2019s] motion specifically provides that the court will decide the motion for judgment by default without a hearing if the party against whom judgment is sought [defendant-debtor] fails to serve a written response, stating the grounds for opposing the motion, within 30 days of service of the motion....\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 55(b)(2)(b)(l) (1999) (emphasis added). However, we note that the statute provides \u2014 not an \u201cautomatic enforcement\u201d of a plaintiffs default judgment, but instead requires a plaintiff-creditor to \u201cmotion [the court] for judgment by default\u201d once the thirty days have passed following notice. Id. This concept is directly in line with our interpretation of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 lC-1704(b)\u2019s requirement that once the thirty day \u201cwaiting period\u201d ends, a plaintiff-creditor must act by motioning the court for enforcement of its foreign judgment before the defendant-debtor responds.\nWe further note, however, that even where a plaintiff includes the required specificity within its motion, a trial court may still set aside an entry of default or a default judgment for good cause. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 55(2)(b). \u201cA motion to set aside an entry of default pursuant to [this Rule] for \u2018good cause\u2019 shown falls within the sound discretion of the trial court, whose decision will not be disturbed on appeal \u2018absent a showing of abuse of that discretion.\u2019 \u201d Automotive Equipment Distributors, Inc. v. Petroleum Equipment & Service, Inc., 87 N.C. App. 606, 608, 361 S.E.2d 895, 896 (1987) (quoting Lumber Co. v. Grizzard, 51 N.C. App. 561, 563, 277 S.E.2d 95, 96 (1981)). \u201cThe law generally disfavors default and \u2018any doubt should be resolved in favor of setting aside an entry of default so that the case may be decided on its merits.\u2019 \u201d Id. (quoting Peebles v. Moore, 48 N.C. App. 497, 504-05, 269 S.E.2d 694, 698 (1980), modified and aff'd, 302 N.C. 351, 275 S.E.2d 833 (1981)).\nIn the case at bar, there is no dispute that defendants filed their Motion for Relief and Notice of Defenses almost thirty days after expiration of the thirty day time period but before plaintiff moved for immediate enforcement of its default judgment against defendants. And although plaintiff had the right and the opportunity to file a motion for immediate enforcement BEFORE defendants responded, plaintiff failed to do so. Additionally, nowhere in the record or in plaintiff\u2019s brief to this Court does plaintiff argue that it was prejudiced by defendants\u2019 delay. Thus, in \u201ctreat[ing] [plaintiff\u2019s] foreign judgment^ the same as [any] domestic judgment[,]\u201d Boyles v. Boyles, 59 N.C. App. 389, 391, 297 S.E.2d 405, 406, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that \u201cthe Defendants Motion for Relief and Notice of Defenses was timely and properly before the Court.\u201d\nAfter thorough review, we conclude the record supports the trial court\u2019s findings and its findings support its conclusions of law. \u201c \u2018Where trial is by judge and not by jury, the trial court\u2019s findings of fact have the force and effect of a verdict by a jury and are conclusive on appeal if there is evidence to support them, even though the evidence might sustain findings to the contrary.\u2019 \u201d Flanders v. Gabriel, 110 N.C. App. 438, 440, 429 S.E.2d 611, 612-13 (1993) (quoting In re Estate of Trogdon, 330 N.C. 143, 147, 409 S.E.2d 897, 900 (1991), aff'd, 335 N.C. 234, 436 S.E.2d 588 (1993)). Finally, we note that our Supreme Court has held that forum selection clauses are valid and enforceable except when compelling reasons dictate otherwise. Perkins v. CCH Computax, Inc., 333 N.C. 140, 146, 423 S.E.2d 780, 784 (1992). Here, the trial court\u2019s findings support those compelling reasons. Id. One remedy may be to ensure that the forum selection clause is prominently displayed in the document executed by the parties. Another remedy may be for the parties to initial the forum selection clause. Nevertheless, having found no abuse of discretion in the case at bar, the trial court\u2019s order is\nAffirmed.\nJudges LEWIS and WALKER concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "HUNTER, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Adams Kleemeier Hagan Hannah & Fonts, by David A. Senter and Brooks F. Bossong, for plaintiff-appellant.", "Woodson, Sayers, Lawther, Short, Parrott & Hudson, LLP, by Sean C. Walker, for defendant-appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "SECURITY CREDIT LEASING, INC., a Florida Corporation, Plaintiff v. D.J.\u2019S OF SALISBURY, INC., a North Carolina corporation, d/b/a D.J.\u2019s Restaurant, and LOUIE MOUROUZIDIZ, Defendants\nNo. COA99-1150\n(Filed 7 November 2000)\nJudgments\u2014 foreign \u2014 enforcement\u201430-day waiting period\nThe trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding that defendants\u2019 motion for relief and notice of defenses was timely filed where defendants and plaintiff entered into a lease for security equipment at defendants\u2019 restaurant; defendants rejected the equipment as unsatisfactory; plaintiff brought an action in Florida under a forum selection clause in the lease; plaintiff obtained a default judgment on 11 August 1997; plaintiff filed its petition to enforce a foreign judgment in North Carolina on 17 February 1998; defendants filed a motion for relief and notice of defenses on 7 May 1998, alleging that Florida did not have personal jurisdiction when it entered the judgment; and the court denied plaintiff\u2019s motion to enforce the Florida judgment. Although plaintiff argued that N.C.G.S. \u00a7 lC-1704(b) gives a defendant debtor a maximum of 30 days in which to seek relief from a foreign judgment, the thirty-day limitation is a waiting period, a restriction on plaintiff-creditor rather than defendant-debtors.\nAppeal by plaintiff from an order entered 9 June 1999, nunc pro tunc 29 March 1999, by Judge Michael E. Beale in Rowan County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 16 August 2000.\nAdams Kleemeier Hagan Hannah & Fonts, by David A. Senter and Brooks F. Bossong, for plaintiff-appellant.\nWoodson, Sayers, Lawther, Short, Parrott & Hudson, LLP, by Sean C. Walker, for defendant-appellees." }, "file_name": "0521-01", "first_page_order": 553, "last_page_order": 561 }