{
  "id": 4221292,
  "name": "LUMBERMANS FINANCIAL, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company, Plaintiff v. SEAN J. POCCIA, Defendant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lumbermans Financial, LLC v. Poccia",
  "decision_date": "2013-06-18",
  "docket_number": "No. COA12-1410",
  "first_page": "67",
  "last_page": "72",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "228 N.C. App. 67"
    }
  ],
  "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": "666 S.E.2d 504",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12641892
      ],
      "year": 2008,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "509",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Cartin v. Harrison, 151 N.C. App. 697, 699, 567 S.E.2d 174, 176, disc. review denied, 356 N.C. 434, 572 S.E.2d 428 (2002)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/666/0504-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "738 S.E.2d 199",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2013,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "203",
          "parenthetical": "holding that post-judgment relief from foreign judgments under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 60(b"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "455 U.S. 691",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        11307431
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "704"
        },
        {
          "page": "570"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/455/0691-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "302 S.E.2d 790",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "792-93",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Underwriters Nat'l Assur. Co. v. N. C. Life and Accident and Health Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 455 U.S. 691, 704, 71 L. Ed. 2d 558, 570 (1982)"
        },
        {
          "page": "792-93",
          "parenthetical": "emphasis added"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "308 N.C. 488",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4707437
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "490",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Underwriters Nat'l Assur. Co. v. N. C. Life and Accident and Health Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 455 U.S. 691, 704, 71 L. Ed. 2d 558, 570 (1982)"
        },
        {
          "page": "490"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/308/0488-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "721 S.E.2d 928",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2011,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "700 S.E.2d 755",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2010,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "758-59",
          "parenthetical": "citing U.S. Const. art. IV, \u00a7 1"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "207 N.C. App. 282",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4178853
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2010,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "287",
          "parenthetical": "citing U.S. Const. art. IV, \u00a7 1"
        },
        {
          "page": "287"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/207/0282-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "572 S.E.2d 428",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2002,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "356 N.C. 434",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        1511169,
        1511387,
        1511370,
        1511183,
        1511131
      ],
      "year": 2002,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/356/0434-04",
        "/nc/356/0434-05",
        "/nc/356/0434-02",
        "/nc/356/0434-03",
        "/nc/356/0434-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "567 S.E.2d 174",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "176"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "151 N.C. App. 697",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        9082078
      ],
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "699"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/151/0697-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "192 N.C. App. 623",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        4160161
      ],
      "year": 2008,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "630",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Cartin v. Harrison, 151 N.C. App. 697, 699, 567 S.E.2d 174, 176, disc. review denied, 356 N.C. 434, 572 S.E.2d 428 (2002)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/192/0623-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 538,
    "char_count": 12124,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.715,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.036927040464816e-08,
      "percentile": 0.46577464554883313
    },
    "sha256": "afa17b3c240b086212363a4a0dd5e25e4605bbacf9a24e105f625be81fd07308",
    "simhash": "1:ca2257b672be1655",
    "word_count": 1954
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:18:27.138557+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge STEPHENS concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "LUMBERMANS FINANCIAL, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company, Plaintiff v. SEAN J. POCCIA, Defendant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HUNTER, Robert C., Judge.\nDefendant Sean J. Poccia (\u201cPoccia\u201d) appeals from the trial court\u2019s order enforcing against him a foreign judgment obtained in a bankruptcy court in the state of Michigan by plaintiff Lumbermans Financial, LLC (\u201cLumbermans\u201d). Poccia contends the trial court erred by ordering him to pay damages in excess of the award in the foreign judgment. After careful review, we reverse the trial court\u2019s order and remand this action for further proceedings.\nBackground\nIn 2004, Poccia was the owner of a residential building company registered in Michigan and known as Lucas Home Builders, LLC. Lumbermans, also a Michigan-registered limited liability company, loaned money to Lucas Home Builders contingent upon Poccia\u2019s personal guaranty of the debt. In 2003, Poccia sought Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection in the Eastern District of Michigan. Lumbermans filed an adversary proceeding seeking to have the debt guaranteed by defendant deemed non-dischargeable.\nOn 2 September 2004, the parties executed a Stipulation for Entry of Consent Judgment (\u201cthe Stipulation\u201d) which contained the following language:\n1. That [Lumbermans] has incurred damages in the amount of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand ($250,000.00) Dollars against the [defendant and [d]ebtor [Poccia].\n5. That the parties acknowledge that the stipulated damages of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand ($250,000.00) Dollars are an estimate because [Lumbermans] has not completed the Dutch Road Residence and sold it. When [Lumbermans] sells the Dutch Road Project, [Poccia] may request that an audit be preformed [sic] at [Poccia\u2019s] expense to determine [Lumbermans\u2019s] actual damages which may be less or may be more than the stipulated amount of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand ($250,000.00) Dollars.\nBased on the Stipulation, the United States Bankruptcy Court of the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, entered a consent judgment on 18 October 2004 (\u201cthe 2004 Consent Judgment\u201d) in which the court ordered that Lumbermans \u201cshall have a judgment against [Poccia] on its claim in the amount of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand ($250,000.00) Dollars plus statutory interest to incur after this date[.]\u201d\nOn 3 October 2011, Lumbermans filed a notice of filing of a foreign judgment pursuant to the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 1C-1701 et seq. (\u201cthe UEFJA\u201d), in Mecklenburg County Superior Court. In the notice of filing, Lumbermans stated that the 2004 Consent Judgment was for \u201cthe principal amount of $240,479.80,\u201d plus post-judgment interest of 2.18% compounded annually. Lumbermans also filed an affidavit in support of the filing in which it averred that the 2004 Consent Judgment was a \u201cfinal\u201d judgment awarding Lumbermans a \u201ctotal sum\u201d in the amount of $240,479.80, plus post-judgment interest.\nIn response, Poccia filed a motion for relief from the judgment alleging that he entered the consent judgment under duress and that the judgment was signed by his counsel not by himself. On 24 February 2011, Judge Forrest D. Bridges entered an order denying Poccia\u2019s motion for relief. The order stayed Lumbermans\u2019s collection efforts for 30 days during which time Lumbermans was required to account for any credits to which Poccia was entitled that resulted from payments on the debt, from the sale of the Dutch Road property, or for any other reason.\nOn 2 March 2012, Lumbermans forwarded to Poccia an accounting of the debt owed in which Lumbermans alleged that \u201cthe actual judgment amount as of October 18, 2004 should be $305,340.61,\u201d plus interest incurred from the date of the 2004 Consent Judgment. Poccia filed an objection to Lumbermans\u2019s accounting in which he argued that he did not agree to pay more than $250,000.00 in damages, plus interest, and was not aware of any documentation showing that the 2004 Consent Judgment had been modified. Lumbermans requested a hearing on Poccia\u2019s objection to the accounting in Mecklenburg County Superior Court.\nFollowing the hearing, Judge Yvonne M. Evans, entered a judgment on 13 August 2012 concluding that the amount of damages provided in the 2004 Consent Judgment was \u201can approximation\u201d of the actual damages owed to Lumbermans that was subject to an audit as provided in Paragraph 5 of the Stipulation. As a result of that audit, the trial court concluded that the amount of actual damages owed by Poccia at the time of the 2004 Consent Judgment was $415,831.06, which was to be reduced by a $135,462.51 credit. Consequently, the trial court ruled that Poccia owed Lumbermans $280,368.55 plus interest. Poccia appeals.\nDiscussion\nPoccia argues that the trial court erred in ordering him to pay damages to Lumbermans in excess of the $250,000.00 in damages, plus interest, ordered in the 2004 Consent Judgment. We agree.\n\u201c \u2018The standard of review on appeal from a judgment entered after a non-jury trial is whether there is competent evidence to support the trial court\u2019s findings of fact and whether the findings support the conclusions of law and ensuing judgment.\u2019 \u201d United Leasing Corp. v. Guthrie, 192 N.C. App. 623, 630, 666 S.E.2d 504, 509 (2008) (quoting Cartin v. Harrison, 151 N.C. App. 697, 699, 567 S.E.2d 174, 176, disc. review denied, 356 N.C. 434, 572 S.E.2d 428 (2002)). The trial court\u2019s conclusions of law, however, are subject to de novo review. Id.\n\u201cThe Constitution\u2019s full faith and credit clause requires states to recognize and enforce valid judgments rendered in sister states.\u201d Gardner v. Tallmadge, 207 N.C. App. 282, 287, 700 S.E.2d 755, 758-59 (2010) (citing U.S. Const. art. IV, \u00a7 1), aff'd sub nom. In re Ohio Judgment,_N.C. _, 721 S.E.2d 928 (2011). \u201cIn carrying out this constitutional mandate, the United States Supreme Court has consistently held that \u2018the judgment of a state court should have the same credit, validity and effect, in every other court of the United States, which it had in the state where it was pronounced.\u2019 \u201d Boyles v. Boyles, 308 N.C. 488, 490, 302 S.E.2d 790, 792-93 (1983) (quoting Underwriters Nat\u2019l Assur. Co. v. N. C. Life and Accident and Health Ins. Guar. Ass\u2019n, 455 U.S. 691, 704, 71 L. Ed. 2d 558, 570 (1982)).\n\u201cThe Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act. . . governs the enforcement of foreign judgments that are entitled to full faith and credit in North Carolina.\u201d Gardner, 207 N.C. App. at 287, 700 S.E.2d at 758-59 (citing N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 1C-1701 et seq. (2009)). Once notice of the filing of the foreign judgment is filed by the judgment creditor,\nthe judgment debtor may file a motion for relief from, or notice of defense to, the foreign judgment on the grounds that the foreign judgment has been appealed from, or enforcement has been stayed by, the court which rendered it, or on any other ground for which relief from a judgment of this State would be allowed.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1C-1705(a); see DOCRX, Inc. v. EMI Servs. of NC, LLC, _N.C. App._,_, 738 S.E.2d 199, 203 (2013) (holding that post-judgment relief from foreign judgments under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 60(b) is limited to the grounds that the foreign judgment was based on extrinsic fraud, is void, has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a judgment upon which the foreign judgment is based has been reversed or vacated, or should no longer be enforced prospectively on equitable grounds). The judgment creditor may then move for \u201cenforcement of the foreign judgment as a judgment of this State[.]\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1C-1705(b).\nIn its notice of the foreign judgment filing, Lumbermans asserted that the 2004 Consent Judgment was for the principal amount of $240,479.80, plus post-judgment interest and sought enforcement of the judgment. Poccia\u2019s motion for relief from the 2004 Consent Judgment was denied, and Lumbermans produced an accounting of the debt asserting that the damages due were greater than the actual judgment amount. Poccia objected to the accounting and requested a hearing before the trial court. In response, Lumbermans filed a trial brief in which it acknowledged that its actual damages \u201cexceeds the judgment amount of $250,000.00,\u201d but insisted that \u201cthis possibility was understood by the parties\u201d as evidenced by Paragraph 5 of the Stipulation. Lumbermans suggested that the trial court was required to construe the language of the parties\u2019 \u201ccontract\u201d to discern their intent that the actual damages were greater than $250,000.00, plus interest. Consequently, Lumbermans asked the trial court to \u201crevise []\u201d the amount of damages in the consent judgment.\nWe note that the 2004 Consent Judgment is not a contract but a final judgment of the United States Bankruptcy Court in the Southern Division of the Eastern District of Michigan. The judgment states that the bankruptcy court read the parties\u2019 Stipulation for the entry of the consent judgment and, for the reasons provided in the Stipulation, ordered that Lumbermans \u201cshall have a judgment against [Poccia] on its claim in the amount of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand ($250,000.00) Dollars plus statutory interest.\u201d We find this language to be unambiguous and to award Lumbermans a judgment of $250,000.00, plus post-judgment interest.\nParagraph 5 of the Stipulation clearly contemplates that as of 2 September 2004, Poccia and Lumbermans agreed that the debt Poccia owed to Lumbermans \u201cmay be less or may be more\u201d than $250,000.00. However, the Stipulation was not incorporated into the consent judgment. Nor does it appear that the Stipulation was filed with the consent judgment. The trial court recognized that the Stipulation was not filed in its order: \u201cthe Stipulation, unjUed, by its terms at the time of the entry of the Consent Judgment, stated as follows ....\u201d (Emphasis added.)\nLumbermans cites no authority which provides that the trial court could have assumed jurisdiction to modify the consent judgment entered by the bankruptcy court. Nor have we found such authority. The UEFJA provides that a valid foreign judgment may be enforced in our state; it does not provide that the courts of North Carolina may modify the original judgment to provide for a greater recovery. See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 1C-1701 to -1708. Indeed, a foreign judgment is only entitled to \u201cthe same credit, validity and effect,\u201d in a sister state as in the state in which it was rendered, Boyles, 308 N.C. at 490, 302 S.E.2d at 792-93 (emphasis added), not more. Therefore, the trial court improperly concluded that the 2004 Consent Judgment entitled Lumbermans to a judgment for damages in the principal amount of greater than $250,000.00, plus post-judgment interest. We conclude that the trial court\u2019s authority permitted it to make a determination of the amount of any payments on the debt made by Poccia or credits due to him from the sale of the Dutch Road property, which were to be deducted from the $250,000.00 in damages, plus post-judgment statutory interest. We reverse the trial court\u2019s order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.\nConclusion\nFor the reasons stated above, the trial court\u2019s 13 August 2012 order is reversed and remanded.\nREVERSED and REMANDED.\nChief Judge MARTIN and Judge STEPHENS concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HUNTER, Robert C., Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Stone & Witt, P.A., by Bryan W. Stone, for plaintiff-appellee.",
      "John F. Hanzel, P.A., by John F. Hanzel, for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "LUMBERMANS FINANCIAL, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company, Plaintiff v. SEAN J. POCCIA, Defendant\nNo. COA12-1410\nFiled 18 June 2013\nJudgments \u2014 Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act\u2014 no authority to award damages in excess of foreign award\nThe trial court erred by requiring defendant to pay damages in excess of the award in a foreign judgment obtained in a bankruptcy court in the state of Michigan. The trial court\u2019s authority permitted it to make a determination of the amount of any payments on the debt made by defendant or credits due to him from the sale of the Dutch Road property, which were to be deducted from the $250,000.00 in damages, plus post-judgment statutory interest.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment entered 13 August 2012 by Judge Yvonne M. Evans in Mecklenburg County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 25 March 2013.\nStone & Witt, P.A., by Bryan W. Stone, for plaintiff-appellee.\nJohn F. Hanzel, P.A., by John F. Hanzel, for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0067-01",
  "first_page_order": 77,
  "last_page_order": 82
}
