{ "id": 8173127, "name": "IN THE MATTER OF THE FORECLOSURE OF A LIEN BY RIDGELOCH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. AGAINST W. MICHAEL McNEILL AND SPOUSE, IF ANY", "name_abbreviation": "Foreclosure of a Lien by Ridgeloch Homeowners Ass'n v. McNeill", "decision_date": "2007-04-03", "docket_number": "No. COA06-991", "first_page": "464", "last_page": "472", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "182 N.C. App. 464" } ], "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": "471 S.E.2d 68", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1996, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "343 N.C. 305", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 798896, 798810, 798767, 798951 ], "year": 1996, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/343/0305-03", "/nc/343/0305-02", "/nc/343/0305-01", "/nc/343/0305-04" ] }, { "cite": "465 S.E.2d 561", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "564" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "121 N.C. App. 370", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11917325 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "374" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/121/0370-01" ] }, { "cite": "552 S.E.2d 243", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "245", "parenthetical": "quoting Cheek v. Poole, 121 N.C. App. 370, 374, 465 S.E.2d 561, 564 (1996), cert. denied, 343 N.C. 305, 471 S.E.2d 68 (1996)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "146 N.C. App. 288", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11356431 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "291", "parenthetical": "quoting Cheek v. Poole, 121 N.C. App. 370, 374, 465 S.E.2d 561, 564 (1996), cert. denied, 343 N.C. 305, 471 S.E.2d 68 (1996)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/146/0288-01" ] }, { "cite": "87 S.E. 317", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1915, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "170 N.C. 533", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8660801 ], "year": 1915, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/170/0533-01" ] }, { "cite": "10 S.E. 490", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1889, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "104 N.C. 422", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651538 ], "year": 1889, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/104/0422-01" ] }, { "cite": "111 S.E. 620", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1922, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "621", "parenthetical": "citing Parton v. Boyd, 104 N.C. 422, 10 S.E. 490 (1889); Yates v. Yates, 170 N.C. 533, 87 S.E. 317 (1915)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "183 N.C. 419", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8656507 ], "year": 1922, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "421", "parenthetical": "citing Parton v. Boyd, 104 N.C. 422, 10 S.E. 490 (1889); Yates v. Yates, 170 N.C. 533, 87 S.E. 317 (1915)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/183/0419-01" ] }, { "cite": "222 S.E.2d 706", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "708", "parenthetical": "internal quotation and citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "28 N.C. App. 709", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8552149 ], "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "712", "parenthetical": "internal quotation and citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/28/0709-01" ] }, { "cite": "178 S.E.2d 446", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "448", "parenthetical": "internal quotation and citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "277 N.C. 720", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8567654 ], "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "723", "parenthetical": "internal quotation and citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/277/0720-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 45-21", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "580 S.E.2d 359", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "357 N.C. 163", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 491812, 491621, 491818, 491754, 491882, 491414, 491740 ], "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/357/0163-06", "/nc/357/0163-03", "/nc/357/0163-07", "/nc/357/0163-05", "/nc/357/0163-04", "/nc/357/0163-01", "/nc/357/0163-02" ] }, { "cite": "574 S.E.2d 163", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "165" }, { "page": "166" }, { "page": "166" }, { "page": "166" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "155 N.C. App. 641", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9251598 ], "weight": 4, "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "643" }, { "page": "644" }, { "page": "644" }, { "page": "644" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/155/0641-01" ] }, { "cite": "190 S.E. 522", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1937, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "211 N.C. 331", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626768 ], "year": 1937, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/211/0331-01" ] }, { "cite": "158 S.E.2d 7", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "10", "parenthetical": "citing Trust Co. v. Foster, 211 N.C. 331, 190 S.E. 522 (1937)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "272 N.C. 172", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571806 ], "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "175", "parenthetical": "citing Trust Co. v. Foster, 211 N.C. 331, 190 S.E. 522 (1937)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/272/0172-01" ] }, { "cite": "74 N.C. 335", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8682687 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1876, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "338" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/74/0335-01" ] }, { "cite": "61 S.E. 679", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1908, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "681", "parenthetical": "citing Paschal v. Harris, 74 N.C. 335 (1876)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "148 N.C. 276", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11269730 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1908, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "282", "parenthetical": "citing Paschal v. Harris, 74 N.C. 335 (1876)" }, { "page": "282" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/148/0276-01" ] }, { "cite": "128 S.E.2d 590", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1962, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "593", "parenthetical": "\"Where no exceptions have been taken to the findings of fact, such findings are presumed to be supported by competent evidence and are binding on appeal.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "258 N.C. 271", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560322 ], "year": 1962, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "275", "parenthetical": "\"Where no exceptions have been taken to the findings of fact, such findings are presumed to be supported by competent evidence and are binding on appeal.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/258/0271-01" ] }, { "cite": "477 S.E.2d 211", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "215" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "124 N.C. App. 332", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11889393 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "336" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/124/0332-01" ] }, { "cite": "178 S.E. 222", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1935, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "223" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "207 N.C. 621", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627672 ], "year": 1935, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "623" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/207/0621-01" ] }, { "cite": "272 S.E.2d 77", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "80" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "301 N.C. 307", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8566056 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "311" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/301/0307-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 45-21.30", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 668, "char_count": 16544, "ocr_confidence": 0.749, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.380845333086465e-08, "percentile": 0.4422113026666806 }, "sha256": "a48d9b157db8392faca75098b806be61e8a36fe3934612f1f62957cb302ea30e", "simhash": "1:c141e94160df2113", "word_count": 2769 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:32:14.097428+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges ELMORE and GEER concur." ], "parties": [ "IN THE MATTER OF THE FORECLOSURE OF A LIEN BY RIDGELOCH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. AGAINST W. MICHAEL McNEILL AND SPOUSE, IF ANY" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "TYSON, Judge.\nNelson G. Harris (\u201cHarris\u201d) as trustee for Ridgeloch Homeowners Association, Inc. (\u201cRidgeloch\u201d) appeals from order vacating the 22 February 2006 order entered by an Assistant Clerk of Court. We affirm.\nI. Background\nOn 17 January 1997, W. Michael McNeill (\u201cMcNeill\u201d) executed and delivered a deed of trust on real property located in Wake County (\u201cthe McNeill property\u201d) to Anchor Financial Group, Inc. to secure payment of a promissory note. The note and deed of trust were eventually assigned to American General Finance, Inc. (\u201cAmerican General\u201d).\nA. Ridaeloch\u2019s Liens and Harris\u2019s Sales\nOn 21 January 2004, Harris filed a Claim of Lien on the McNeill property. The Claim of Lien asserted for overdue and outstanding homeowner\u2019s association dues in the amount of $2,088.18 owed to Ridgeloch.\nHarris filed a Notice of Foreclosure Hearing with the Clerk of Superior Court on 6 February 2004. Ridgeloch sought to foreclose on the McNeill property based upon its Claim of Lien filed 21 January 2004. On 8 April 2004, after hearing, an Assistant Clerk of Court entered a Foreclosure Order that authorized Harris to sell the McNeill property as described in the Claim of Lien. On 26 April 2004, Harris filed a Notice of Sale-of Real Estate that stated the McNeill property would be exposed for sale on 27 May 2004.\nOn 24 May 2004, Harris filed a Notice of Postponement of Sale of Real Estate. Harris had received notice that McNeill had filed bankruptcy. The foreclosure sale was postponed until 24 June 2004 for Harris to determine whether or not his sale could proceed. McNeill\u2019s bankruptcy case was later dismissed. Harris filed a Re-Notice of Sale of Real Estate on 25 June 2004 that stated the McNeill property would be exposed for sale on 12 August 2004.\nOn 12 August 2004, Harris conducted a foreclosure sale of the McNeill property. Rodney Daw was the last and highest bidder with a bid of $3,794.12. Successive upset bids were submitted that culminated with a high bid of $16,537.50 on 9 September 2004. Also that day, McNeill filed a second petition for bankruptcy.\nOn 14 September 2004, Harris filed a Notice of Stay. The Notice of Stay stated McNeill had again filed for bankruptcy. McNeill\u2019s second bankruptcy petition was dismissed on 5 January 2005.\nOn 12 January 2005, Harris filed a Re-Notice of Sale of Real Estate that stated the McNeill property would be exposed for sale on 24 February 2005. On 24 February 2005, Harris conducted a foreclosure sale (\u201cthe Harris foreclosure sale\u201d) of the McNeill property. Overhaul, LLC was the last and highest bidder for $6,300.00. The Harris foreclosure sale was followed by ten upset bids.\nOn 21 April 2005, Jeremy Walker (\u201cWalker\u201d) filed a Notice of Upset Bid \u2014 Notice to Trustee or Mortgagee on the Harris foreclosure sale. Walker bid $27,575.00 for the McNeill property and deposited $1,378.75 with the Clerk of Superior Court. No further upset bids were filed. Walker became the last and highest bidder for the Harris foreclosure sale on 3 May 2005.\nOn 9 May 2005, Harris submitted to Walker a proposed Trustee\u2019s Deed to convey the property pursuant to Walker\u2019s winning upset bid during the Harris foreclosure sale. Walker developed concerns about finalizing the foreclosure sale and contacted Harris. David Shearin (\u201cShearin\u201d), counsel for Walker, also contacted Harris. Shearin indicated Walker was unaware his interest would be subject to the first mortgage and other liens of record filed prior to Harris\u2019s Claim of Lien when he purchased the McNeill property at the Harris foreclosure sale. Shearin indicated to Harris that Walker was unlikely to close.\nOn 6 June 2005, Harris filed a Motion for Order seeking an order to permit resale of the McNeill property. On 23 June 2005, an Assistant Clerk of Court entered an Order for Resale of the McNeill property.\nB.The Glass Foreclosure Sale\nOn 28 March 2005, Philip A. Glass (\u201cGlass\u201d), as substitute trustee on the deed of trust held by American General, held a separate foreclosure sale (\u201cthe Glass foreclosure-sale\u201d). The high bid at the Glass foreclosure sale and conveyance was also followed by successive upset bids.\nOn 24 June 2005, the Glass foreclosure sale and conveyance was completed upon the recordation of a Substitute Trustee\u2019s Deed for the McNeill property. Glass\u2019s Substitute Trustee\u2019s Deed conveyed the McNeill property to the highest bidder, Kendall Moragne.\nOn 28 June 2005, Harris filed a Notice of Resale of Real Estate that stated the McNeill property would be exposed for sale on 28 July 2005. On 29 July 2005, Ridgeloch was the last and highest bidder at the resale with a bid of $1.00.\nC.Harris\u2019s Motion for Judgment\nOn 9 August 2005, Harris filed a Motion For Judgment Against Walker and moved the Clerk of Court for entry of judgment against Walker pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 45-21.30. On 1 September 2005, an Assistant Clerk of Court entered judgment against Walker and found: (1) Walker was the last and highest bidder during the Harris foreclosure sale of the McNeill property; (2) Walker did not honor his bid; (3) the McNeill property had been resold for $1.00; and (4) Walker was obligated to Harris for the difference between his bid of $27,575.00 and the ultimate sales price of $1.00, plus resale costs of $550.00. An Assistant Clerk of Court ordered Walker\u2019s bid deposit of $1,378.00 to be delivered to Harris and applied to the judgment. Harris collected Walker\u2019s bid deposit and proceeded to attempt to enforce the judgment.\nD.Walker\u2019s Motion to Vacate Judgment\nOn 6 February 2006, Walker filed a Motion to Vacate Judgment pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 60(b). On 22 February 2006, an Assistant Clerk of Court denied Walker\u2019s motion. Walker filed a Notice of Appeal to the Superior Court.\nOn 9 May 2006, the Superior Court ordered the judgment against Walker vacated pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 60(b) and concluded:\n11. Since Ridgeloch\u2019s lien was junior in priority to the [American General] Deed of Trust, Ridgeloch\u2019s lien was extinguished by [American General\u2019s] foreclosure on the property, which was consummated by the tender of a deed on June 28, 2005. As a result, [Harris], as the appointed trustee in this foreclosure proceeding on Ridgeloch\u2019s lien, should have ceased all efforts to foreclose on the property as of June 28, 2005, when Ridgeloch\u2019s lien was extinguished. Thus, the resale of the property that [Harris] subsequently held on July 28, 2005, at which Ridgeloch was the only bidder at $1.00, was not a valid resale. Therefore, it was not proper for Harris to seek a judgment against Walker based upon the results of the invalid July 28, 2005 resale pursuant to G.S. 45-21.30(d).\n13. Walker\u2019s costs associated with bringing his Motion to Vacate the Judgment are taxed against Ridgeloch.\nHarris appeals.\nII. Issues\nHarris contends the superior court erred by concluding: (1) Ridgeloch should have ceased all efforts to foreclose on the McNeill property as of 28 June 2005; (2) the foreclosure sale was invalid; (3) that the judgment against Walker should be set aside; and (4) imposing costs upon Ridgeloch.\nIII. Standard of Review\n\u201cWhen a proceeding before the clerk is brought before the superior court, the court\u2019s jurisdiction is not appellate or derivative; it is original.\u201d Hassell v. Wilson, 301 N.C. 307, 311, 272 S.E.2d 77, 80 (1980). The superior court had original jurisdiction to adjudicate de novo Walker\u2019s Motion to Vacate Judgment pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 60(b). N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 l-301.1(b) (2005).\nPriority of interests in land is a question of law. Hood, Comr. of Banks, v. Landreth, 207 N.C. 621, 623, 178 S.E. 222, 223 (1935). We review the superior court\u2019s conclusions of law de novo. Starco, Inc. v. AMG Bonding and Ins. Services, 124 N.C. App. 332, 336, 477 S.E.2d 211, 215 (1996).\nIV. The Harris Foreclosure Sale\nA. No Statutory Authority\nHarris asserts the superior court\u2019s conclusion of law that Ridgeloch improperly sought judgment against Walker was error and argues \u201cthere is no statutory or other authority for the proposition that Harris should not complete the foreclosure sale in this case.\u201d We disagree.\nThe superior court found that: (1) American General held a senior mortgage or deed of trust on the McNeill property that was executed, delivered, and recorded on 17 January 1997; (2) on 21 January 2004, Ridgeloch obtained a junior lien on the McNeill property when Harris filed a Claim of Lien; and (3) the Glass foreclosure sale on American General\u2019s senior deed of trust was completed and Glass\u2019s trustee\u2019s deed was tendered and recorded on 28 June 2005.\nThe superior court\u2019s findings of fact were not excepted to by Harris and are binding on appeal. See Schloss v. Jamison, 258 N.C. 271, 275, 128 S.E.2d 590, 593 (1962) (\u201cWhere no exceptions have been taken to the findings of fact, such findings are presumed to be supported by competent evidence and are binding on appeal.\u201d).\nLong settled case law holds, \u201cThe sale [under a mortgage or deed of trust] . . . cuts out and extinguishes all liens, encumbrances and junior mortgages executed subsequent to the mortgage containing the power.\u201d Dunn v. Oettinger Bros., 148 N.C. 276, 282, 61 S.E. 679, 681 (1908) (citing Paschal v. Harris, 74 N.C. 335 (1876)). \u201cOrdinarily, all encumbrances and liens which the mortgagor or trustor imposed on the property subsequent to the execution and recording of the senior mortgage or deed of trust will be extinguished by sale under foreclosure of the senior instrument.\u201d Realty Co. v. Wysor, 272 N.C. 172, 175, 158 S.E.2d 7, 10 (1967) (citing Trust Co. v. Foster, 211 N.C. 331, 190 S.E. 522 (1937)).\nThe superior court concluded: (1) American-General\u2019s foreclosure on the property was consummated with delivery and recordation of the trustee\u2019s deed on 28 June 2005 and extinguished Ridgeloch\u2019s junior lien; (2) Harris should have ceased all efforts to foreclose on the McNeill property as of 28 June 2005; (3) Harris\u2019s final foreclosure sale was invalid; and (4) that the resulting judgment against Walker is to be set aside.\nAmerican General\u2019s foreclosure pursuant to a prior recorded and senior deed of trust on the McNeill property consummated 28 June 2005 extinguished Ridgeloch\u2019s junior lien on the property. Dunn, 148 N.C. at 282, 61 S.E. at. 681. Harris\u2019s \u201cpetition -was functus officio by a sale under the power in [American General\u2019s senior deed of trust].\u201d Paschal, 74 N.C. at 338. The superior court properly ordered the judgment against Walker to be set aside. This assignment of error is overruled.\nB. The Glass Foreclosure Sale\nHarris also argues the superior court erred because insufficient evidence showed whether the Glass foreclosure sale on American General\u2019s senior deed of trust was conducted in a proper fashion. We disagree.\nThis Court addressed a similar argument in Benefit Mortg. Co. v. Hamidpour, where a junior mortgagee, challenged a senior mortgagee\u2019s foreclosure sale. 155 N.C. App. 641, 643, 574 S.E.2d 163, 165 (2002), disc. rev. denied, 357 N.C. 163, 580 S.E.2d 359 (2003). This Court concluded the junior mortgagee did not file a request for notice of sale and dismissed the appeal. Id. The junior mortgagee failed to file a request for notice of sale and lacked standing to challenge either the adequacy of notice provided by the senior mortgagee or whether the senior mortgagee\u2019s sale violated other statutes. 155 N.C. App. at 644, 574 S.E.2d at 166.\nHere, either Harris, as Trustee, or Ridgeloch, holder of the junior lien on the McNeill property, could have filed a request for notice of foreclosure sale on American General\u2019s senior deed of trust. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 45-21.17A(a) (2005) states, in relevant part:\nAny person desiring a copy of any notice of sale may, at any time subsequent to the recordation of the security instrument and prior to the filing of notice of hearing provided for in G.S. 45-21.16, cause to be filed for record in the office of the register of deeds of each county where all or any part of the real property is situated, a duly acknowledged request for a copy of such notice of sale.\nAbsent from the record on appeal is any evidence Harris or Ridgeloch recorded a request for notice of sale of the McNeill property. In the absence of a filed request for notice of sale, Harris lacks standing to challenge the Glass foreclosure sale on the senior deed of trust held by American General. Benefit Mortg. Co., 155 N.C. App. at 644, 574 S.E.2d at 166. This assignment of error is dismissed.\nV. Imposing Costs\nHarris argues the superior court erred when it concluded \u201cWalker\u2019s costs associated with bringing his Motion to Vacate the Judgement are taxed against Ridgeloch.\u201d We disagree.\nWalker moved to vacate the judgment against him pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 60(b). Our Supreme Court has stated the language of Rule 60(b) \u201cgives the court ample power to vacate judgments whenever such action is appropriate to accomplish justice.\u201d Brady v. Town of Chapel Hill, 277 N.C. 720, 723, 178 S.E.2d 446, 448 (1971) (internal quotation and citation omitted).\nThis Court has described Rule 60(b) \u201cas a grand reservoir of equitable power to do justice in a particular case.\u201d Jim Walter Homes, Inc. v. Peartree, 28 N.C. App. 709, 712, 222 S.E.2d 706, 708 (1976) (internal quotation and citation omitted).\nLong ago, our Supreme Court stated when the action \u201chas been in the nature of an equitable proceeding, . . . the adjudication of the costs is in the discretion of the court.\u201d Hare v. Hare, 183 N.C. 419, 421, 111 S.E. 620, 621 (1922) (citing Parton v. Boyd, 104 N.C. 422, 10 S.E. 490 (1889); Yates v. Yates, 170 N.C. 533, 87 S.E. 317 (1915)). \u201cThis Court may reverse for abuse of discretion only upon a showing that the trial court\u2019s order is \u2018manifestly unsupported by reason.\u2019 \u201d Clark v. Penland, 146 N.C. App. 288, 291, 552 S.E.2d 243, 245 (2001) (quoting Cheek v. Poole, 121 N.C. App. 370, 374, 465 S.E.2d 561, 564 (1996), cert. denied, 343 N.C. 305, 471 S.E.2d 68 (1996)). Here, Harris has failed to show the trial court\u2019s decision to award costs to Walker was \u201cmanifestly unsupported by reason.\u201d Id. This assignment of error is overruled.\nVI. Conclusion\nThe superior court properly concluded: (1) Harris should have ceased all efforts to foreclose on the McNeill property as of 28 June 2005; (2) the Harris foreclosure sale was not valid; and (3) the judgment against Walker should be set aside.\nHarris failed to file a request for notice of sale. Harris lacks standing to challenge whether the Glass foreclosure sale on the senior deed of trust held by American General was conducted in a proper fashion. This assignment of error is dismissed. Benefit Mortg. Co., 155 N.C. App. at 644, 574 S.E.2d at 166.\nHarris has failed to show that the superior court abused its discretion by concluding \u201cWalker\u2019s costs associated with bringing his Motion to Vacate the Judgement are taxed against Ridgeloch.\u201d The superior court\u2019s order is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nJudges ELMORE and GEER concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "TYSON, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Harris & Hilton, P.A., by Nelson G. Harris as Trustee for Ridgeloch Homeowners Association, Inc,", "Poyner & Spruill LLP, by Keith H. Johnson and Chad W. Essick, for appellee Jeremy Walker." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "IN THE MATTER OF THE FORECLOSURE OF A LIEN BY RIDGELOCH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. AGAINST W. MICHAEL McNEILL AND SPOUSE, IF ANY\nNo. COA06-991\n(Filed 3 April 2007)\n1. Mortgages and Deeds of Trust\u2014 enforcement of foreclosure bid \u2014 Underlying lien extinguished \u2014 order to set aside judgment\nThe superior court properly set aside a judgment enforcing a foreclosure bid where the court concluded that foreclosure of a superior lien extinguished the junior lien which produced the foreclosure and judgment at issue here.\n2. Mortgages and Deeds of Trust\u2014 junior lienholder\u2014 standing\nThe trustee for a junior lienholder lacked standing to challenge a foreclosure sale on the senior deed of trust in the absence of a filed request for notice of sale.\n3. Costs\u2014 Rule 60 motion \u2014 no abuse of discretion\nThe superior court did not abuse its discretion in assessing the costs of a Rule 60 motion to vacate a judgment to enforce a foreclosure bid. The adjudication of costs in an action in the nature of an equitable proceeding is in the discretion of the court. The trial court\u2019s decision here was not shown to be manifestly unsupported by reason.\nAppeal by Nelson G. Harris as Trustee for Ridgeloch Homeowners Association, Inc. from order entered 9 May 2006 by Judge Robert H. Hobgood in Wake County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 7 March 2007.\nHarris & Hilton, P.A., by Nelson G. Harris as Trustee for Ridgeloch Homeowners Association, Inc,\nPoyner & Spruill LLP, by Keith H. Johnson and Chad W. Essick, for appellee Jeremy Walker." }, "file_name": "0464-01", "first_page_order": 496, "last_page_order": 504 }