{
  "id": 8523518,
  "name": "PROVIDENT FINANCE COMPANY v. JAMES and VERA LOCKLEAR",
  "name_abbreviation": "Provident Finance Co. v. Locklear",
  "decision_date": "1988-04-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 8716DC391",
  "first_page": "535",
  "last_page": "538",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "89 N.C. App. 535"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 319,
    "char_count": 6808,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.784,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.981849965819419e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5381049242639243
    },
    "sha256": "cd54c5433c0909a72f807766294f609ac815a914b52c1d49366ba4ff752d1f96",
    "simhash": "1:0ac9df2066b90cef",
    "word_count": 1110
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:39:00.818604+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges BECTON and PHILLIPS concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "PROVIDENT FINANCE COMPANY v. JAMES and VERA LOCKLEAR"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "GREENE, Judge.\nThe sole issue presented on appeal is whether plaintiff gave timely written notice of appeal to the district court from a magistrate\u2019s judgment in a small claims action. The magistrate announced his judgment in open court on 22 August 1986 and noted it in his minutes. He prepared his written judgment later the same day but did not file it until 26 August 1986. Plaintiff filed its written notice of appeal fourteen days after 22 August 1986. The District Court dismissed the appeal for trial de novo since plaintiffs notice was filed too late under N.C.G.S. Sec. 7A-228(a) (1986) which states in part:\nAfter final disposition before the magistrate, the sole remedy for an aggrieved party is appeal for trial de novo before a district court judge or a jury. Notice of appeal may be given orally in open court upon announcement or after entry of judgment. If not announced in open court, written notice of appeal must be filed in the office of the clerk of superior court within 10 days after entry of judgment.\nAlthough plaintiffs written notice of appeal was filed fourteen days after the magistrate announced his judgment in open court, plaintiff nevertheless contends that notice was timely. Plaintiff first notes that N.C.G.S. Sec. 7A-224 (1986) states:\nJudgment in a small claim action is rendered in writing and signed by the magistrate. The judgment so rendered is a judgment of the district court, and is recorded and indexed as are judgments of the district and superior court generally. Entry is made as soon as practicable after rendition.\nPlaintiff construes Section 7A-224 to mean that a magistrate can never \u201crender\u201d a small claims judgment until he reduces it to writing. As the magistrate here did not prepare his written judgment in open court, plaintiff contends that the judgment was therefore not \u201crendered\u201d in open court. Under Rule 58, judgments rendered out of court are not deemed \u201centered\u201d until the clerk mails copies of the written and filed judgment to all parties. N.C.G.S. Sec. 1A-1, Rule 58 (1987) (where judgment not rendered in open court, entry of judgment deemed complete when judgment filed and clerk mails notice to all parties). As the evidence is clear that the clerk has never mailed any copies of the magistrate\u2019s judgment to the parties, plaintiff concludes that the magistrate\u2019s judgment has never been properly entered and therefore its notice of appeal cannot be untimely under Section 7A-228.\nWhile plaintiffs argument is logical, its premise is false: Section 7A-224 does not control the manner of \u201crendering\u201d magistrate\u2019s judgments under Rule 58; Section 7A-224 merely requires the magistrate\u2019s judgment be rendered in writing in order to be deemed a judgment of the district court entitled to recording and indexing as any other district court judgment. See Sec. 7A-224 (judgment \u201cso rendered\u201d is judgment of district court). The statement that \u201centry is made as soon as practicable after rendition\u201d merely refers to the entry of that judgment in the records and indexes of the general courts. See Black\u2019s Law Dictionary 478 (5th ed. 1979) (\u201centry\u201d generally synonymous with \u201crecording\u201d). Thus, Section 7A-224 simply sets forth the requirements for filing a magistrate\u2019s judgment as a judgment of the district court.\nConversely, Rule 58 specifically controls the determination of the magistrate\u2019s \u201centry\u201d of the small claims court judgment in the court minutes for purposes of appeal under Section 7A-228. Under Rule 58, the magistrate here \u201crendered\u201d his judgment in open court since the evidence is clear that he announced the judgment in open court. See Black\u2019s Law Dictionary 1165 (5th ed. 1979) (\u201crender judgment\u201d means to \u201cpronounce, state, declare or announce\u201d judgment and is not synonymous with \u201centering, docketing or recording\u201d). As the magistrate\u2019s judgment both dismissed plaintiffs action and awarded defendants a sum certain on their counterclaim, entry of the magistrate\u2019s judgment is deemed to occur at the time of rendition since Rule 58 provides that \u201cthe clerk . . . shall make a notation in his minutes of such . . . decision and such notation shall constitute entry of judgment . . . .\u201d (emphasis added). Entry of the magistrate\u2019s judgment for purposes of Rule 58 was not less automatic simply because the magistrate himself (rather than a clerk) noted the judgment in the court minutes: Under Rule 17 of the General Rules of Practice of the Superior and District Courts, entries on court records may be made by the clerk, the deputy clerk, any person specifically directed by the presiding judge, or the judge himself. See N.C.G.S. Sec. 7A-34 (1986) (adopting such rules of court supplementing rules of civil procedure). Given the court\u2019s authority to note its own judgment in court records, we note the result under Rule 58 would be the same even if the judgment rendered in open court were not for a sum certain. Cf. Sec. 1A-1, Rule 58 (in \u201cother cases where judgment is rendered in open court,\u201d clerk notes judgment in minutes \u201cas the judge may direct . . .\u201d).\nAccordingly, the record clearly reveals that the magistrate both rendered his judgment and entered it in his minutes on 22 August 1986. As entry under Rule 58 therefore occurred on 22 August 1986, the district court properly dismissed plaintiffs appeal since its written notice was not filed until 5 September 1986. In passing, we note that Section 7A-228(a) provides for motions under Rule 60(b)(1) to set aside the magistrate\u2019s judgment; however, the district court\u2019s dismissal of this appeal must be\nAffirmed.\nJudges BECTON and PHILLIPS concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "GREENE, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Etheridge, Moser and Garner, P.A., by Terry R. Gamer, for plaintiff-appellant.",
      "Lumbee River Legal Services, Inc., by Janet H. Roach, for defendant-appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "PROVIDENT FINANCE COMPANY v. JAMES and VERA LOCKLEAR\nNo. 8716DC391\n(Filed 5 April 1988)\nCourts \u00a7 14.2; Rules of Civil Procedure \u00a7 58\u2014 magistrate\u2019s small claim judgment\u2014 time of entry \u2014 belated notice of appeal\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-224 does not control the manner of \u201centry\u201d of a magistrate\u2019s judgment under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 58 but merely requires that a magistrate\u2019s judgment in a small claim action be rendered in writing in order to be deemed a judgment of the district court entitled to recording and indexing as any other district court judgment. Therefore, a judgment was entered by the magistrate when he announced his judgment in open court and noted it in his minutes, not when he filed his written judgment four days later, and plaintiffs written notice of appeal filed more than ten days after the judgment was announced in open court was not timely. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-228(a).\nAPPEAL by plaintiff from Behan IAdelaide GJ, Judge. Judgment entered 12 December 1986 in District Court, SCOTLAND County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 27 October 1987.\nEtheridge, Moser and Garner, P.A., by Terry R. Gamer, for plaintiff-appellant.\nLumbee River Legal Services, Inc., by Janet H. Roach, for defendant-appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0535-01",
  "first_page_order": 563,
  "last_page_order": 566
}