N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1

Rule 12(b) permits a court to treat a motion to dismiss as one for summary judgment when it considers matters outside the record and gives the parties a reasonable opportunity to present pertinent material.

Golden v. Golden · filed 1979-10-16Rule 12(b)

We find it was proper for Judge Tate to consider plaintiff’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure as one for summary judgment and to consider matters off the face of the record after giving the parties reasonable opportunity to present all material pertinent to the disposition of the case by summary judgment.

When a court considers matters outside the pleadings on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, it must treat the motion as one for summary judgment under Rule 56.

Roach v. City of Lenoir · filed 1980-01-15Rule 12(b)(6)

Because matters outside the pleadings were considered by the court in reaching its decision, the motion should be treated as a motion for summary judgment and disposed of in the manner and on the conditions stated in G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56.

Rule 12(b) treats a motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment when the court considers matters outside the pleadings.

Parslow v. Parslow · filed 1980-06-03Rule 12(b)

It is noted that the order refers to defendant’s Rule 12 (b) (6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, but Rule 12 (b) provides that on such motion if matters outside the pleadings are presented to and considered by the court, the motion will be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56. Therefore, the order appealed from is treated by us as a motion for summary judgment.

When the court considers matters outside the pleadings on a motion to dismiss, it must treat the motion as one for summary judgment under Rule 56.

Oliver v. Roberts · filed 1980-10-30Rule 56

Because the trial court considered matters outside the pleadings in reaching its decision, the motion should be treated as a motion for summary judgment and disposed of in the manner provided in Rule 56.

When a court considers a deposition and interrogatories in deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, it treats the motion as one for summary judgment.

Hutchinson v. Hutchinson · filed 1980-12-02Rule 12(b)(6)

We next note that although the trial court apparently treated defendant's motion as a motion to dismiss pursuant to G.S. 1A-1, Rule 12(b)(6), the judgment indicates that the trial court considered, in addition to plaintiffs complaint and defendant’s motion, a deposition and interrogatories and answers to interrogatories. Under these circumstances, it seems apparent that the trial court treated defendant’s motion as a motion for summary judgment.

Rule 12(b) requires a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim to be treated as a summary judgment motion when matters outside the pleadings are presented and not excluded.

Coleman v. Shirlen · filed 1981-09-01Rule 12(b)

As the record before us indicates that matters outside the pleadings were presented and not excluded by the trial judge, we must view defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for relief as a motion for summary judgment.

Rule 12(b) converts a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim into a motion for summary judgment when the court considers stipulated facts outside the complaint.

Broome Et Ux. Broome v. Pistolis Et Ux. Pistolis · filed 1981-08-04Rule 12(b)

The parties stipulated to certain facts not alleged in the complaint for the purpose of the hearing on defendants’ motion. It is clear from the order entered that the trial court considered the stipulated facts. The defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim was thereby converted into a motion for summary judgment.

Under Rule 12(b), consideration of live testimony converts a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment for purposes of review.

Baugh v. Woodard · filed 1982-03-02Rule 12(b)

In the present case, the court considered live testimony, and, hence, its ruling must be reviewed as if it were a ruling on a motion for summary judgment.

When the court considers evidence beyond the pleadings on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the resulting judgment is treated as summary judgment.

Asheville Contracting Co. v. City of Wilson · filed 1983-06-07Rule 12(b)

As the record before Judge Brown contained evidentiary materials going beyond the pleadings, the judgment before us must be treated as a grant of defendant’s motion for summary judgment and not as a dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).

Rule 12(b) requires a motion to dismiss to be treated as a motion for summary judgment when the trial court considers matters outside the pleadings.

Highlands Township Taxpayers Ass'n v. Highlands Township Taxpayers Ass'n, Inc. · filed 1983-06-07Rule 12(b)

Since matters outside of the pleadings, in the form of requests for admissions and answers, were presented to and not excluded by the trial court, defendants’ motions to dismiss must be treated as motions for summary judgment under Rule 56. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 12(b).

Rule 12(b) converts a motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment when the court considers affidavits, and requires a reasonable opportunity for all parties to present pertinent material.

Raintree Homeowners Ass'n v. Raintree Corp. · filed 1983-06-21Rule 12(b)

Plaintiffs correctly contend that the court’s implicit consideration of defendant’s affidavits in connection with the 12(b)(6) motion converts that motion to one for summary judgment. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 12(b). Rule 12(b) also says that, in such a case, “all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56.”

A Rule 12(b)(6) motion becomes a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment when the court considers material outside the complaint.

Lowder v. Lowder · filed 1984-05-15Rule 12(b)(6)

Pursuant to the provisions of Rule 12(b)(6), defendants’ motions were thus converted to Rule 56 motions for summary judgment.

A Rule 12(b)(6) motion is converted to a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment when the court considers material outside the complaint.

Hudson v. All Star Mills, Inc. · filed 1984-05-15Rule 12(b)(6)

Pursuant to the provisions of Rule 12(b) (6), defendants’ motions were thus converted to Rule 56 motions for summary judgment.

Rule 12(b)(6) converts a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment when the court considers material outside the pleadings.

Lowder v. Doby · filed 1984-05-15Rule 12(b)(6)

Pursuant to the provision of Rule 12(b)(6), defendants’ motions were thus converted to Rule 56 motions for summary judgment.

Under Rule 12(b)(6), considering material outside the complaint converts a motion to dismiss into a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment.

Lowder v. Rogers · filed 1984-05-15Rule 12(b)(6)

Pursuant to the provision of Rule 12(b)(6), defendants’ motions were thus converted to Rule 56 motions for summary judgment.

Rule 12(c) requires a motion for judgment on the pleadings to be treated as a summary judgment motion when the court considers evidence outside the pleadings.

Stephenson v. Jones · filed 1984-06-19Rule 12(c)

We must, however, treat the appeal as one involving the principles of summary judgment because the record reveals that at the hearing the parties offered evidence.

Rule 12(b) requires a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim to be treated as a summary judgment motion when the court considers materials outside the pleading.

Vann v. North Carolina State Bar · filed 1986-02-04Rule 12(b)

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 12(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides that, if on a motion to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion should be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 56 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. ... We therefore treat the trial court’s order as entry of summary judgment for respondent and review it as such.

A motion to dismiss is converted to a summary judgment motion when the court considers matters outside the pleadings.

Lee v. Barksdale · filed 1986-11-25Rule 12(b)(6)

Further, when matters outside the pleadings are considered on a motion to dismiss, the motion is converted to one for summary judgment and is disposed of in the manner stated in Rule 56.

Rule 12(b) treats a motion to dismiss as one for summary judgment when the court considers matters outside the pleadings.

Carter v. N. C. State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers & Land Surveyors · filed 1987-07-07Rule 12(b)

In ruling upon defendants’ motions to dismiss, the trial court considered not only the pleadings, but also affidavits, the Board’s report, and the testimony of four witnesses presented at the hearing. Where matters outside the pleadings are presented to and considered by the court on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the motion will be treated as one for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56.

Rule 12(b) treats a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim as a motion for summary judgment when the decision considers matters outside the pleading.

Stallings v. North Carolina Department of Transportation · filed 1988-12-20Rule 12(b)

If, on a motion ... to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56, and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56. G.S. 1A-1, Rule 12(b). Thus, we review the Industrial Commission’s decision as if the motion for summary judgment had been granted.

A Rule 12(b)(6) motion need not be converted to a Rule 56 motion when the court does not consider materials outside the pleadings.

Privette v. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · filed 1989-11-07Rule 12(b)(6)

We first determine the trial court was not required to convert the Rule 12 motion into one for summary judgment under Rule 56. N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 12(b)(6) (1983); N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 56 (1983). N.C.G.S. § 1A-I2(b) (if “matters outside the pleading” are presented to the court, Rule 12 motions are converted to Rule 56 motions). While matters outside the pleadings were introduced, the record is clear the trial court did not consider these affidavits in ruling on the Rule 12 motion.

Rule 12(b)(6) requires conversion to summary judgment when the court considers matters outside the pleadings and gives the parties a reasonable opportunity to submit pertinent material.

Locus v. Fayetteville State University · filed 1991-04-16(b)(6)

The Rules of Civil Procedure do not require one party to anticipate the making of a motion by another party. Indeed, Rule 12(b) clearly contemplates the case where a party is “surprised” by the treatment of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion as one for summary judgment; it affords such a party a reasonable opportunity to oppose the motion with her own materials made pertinent to such a motion.

Rule 56 requires a motion to dismiss to be treated as a summary judgment motion when the court considers matters outside the pleadings.

North Carolina Railroad v. Ferguson Builders Supply, Inc. · filed 1991-08-20

Where matters outside the pleadings are received and considered by the court in ruling on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the motion should be treated as a motion for summary judgment and disposed of in the manner and on the conditions stated in G.S. 1A-1, Rule 56.

Rule 12(b)(6) motions become Rule 56 summary judgment motions when matters outside the pleadings are presented and not excluded; summary judgment is proper when no genuine issue of material fact exists.

Watson Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Price Mechanical, Inc. · filed 1992-07-07Rule 12(b)(6); Rule 56(c)

A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is “converted to a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment when matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court.” ... Thus, even though the counterclaim states a claim upon which relief may be granted, the motion is converted to a motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is properly granted where “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits . . . show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”

A Rule 12(b)(6) motion becomes a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment when the trial court considers matters outside the pleadings.

Robbins v. Tweetsie Railroad, Inc. · filed 1997-07-01Rule 12(b)(6)

However, the trial court, in ruling upon the motion, admitted and considered matters outside of the pleadings. Accordingly, defendants’ 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss were converted to Rule 56 motions for summary judgment.

Under Rule 12(b), a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is treated as a summary judgment motion when the court considers material outside the pleadings.

State of North Carolina Gaston County Estate of Jiggetts Ex Rel. Jiggetts v. City of Gastonia · filed 1998-01-20Rule 12(b)

We initially note that in ruling on defendant’s motion to dismiss, the trial court considered exhibits and other material submitted by both parties. ... We therefore treat the City’s motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment.

Rule 12(b) treats a motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment when matters outside the pleadings are presented and not excluded by the court.

In Re Estate of Montgomery · filed 2000-04-18Rule 12(b)

Although a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure is treated as a motion for summary judgment when “matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court,” N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 12(b) (1999), the record in this case does not contain any matters outside the parties’ pleadings regarding Respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing.

Rule 12(b) requires a motion to be treated under Rule 56 when the court considers matters outside the pleadings, even if the order does not specifically reference Rule 56.

Beck v. City of Durham · filed 2002-12-03Rule 12(b)

However, since Rule 12(b) expressly provides for the disposal of claims under Rule 56 when outside matters are considered, it was not necessary for the trial court to specifically reference Rule 56 in its order and judgment. Furthermore, it is clear from the text of the order and judgment that the trial court used Rule 12(b) and Rule 56 interchangeably to refer to the alternative grounds for dismissal as stated in defendants’ motion. Therefore, we conclude the order and judgment was a grant of dismissal under Rule 56 where the court considered matters outside the pleadings.

Rule 12(b) treats a Rule 12(b)(6) motion as a summary judgment motion when the court considers matters outside the pleadings.

Belcher v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2004-01-06Rule 12(b)

Rule 12(b) provides that if on a motion to dismiss made pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), matters outside of the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion is to be treated as a summary judgment motion under Rule 56. ... In this case, the trial court, upon consideration of matters outside the pleadings submitted by both plaintiffs and defendants, properly converted defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion into a Rule 56 motion.

Rule 56 treats a motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment when the trial court considers matters outside the pleadings.

RSN Properties, Inc. v. Jones · filed 2005-03-01Rule 56

Where the trial court considers matters outside the pleadings, a motion to dismiss will be treated as a motion for summary judgment pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 56. ... Therefore, we treat the trial court's order dismissing all of these claims as one granting summary judgment and we apply the applicable standard of review.

Rule 12(b) does not require converting a motion to dismiss into a summary judgment motion when the parties’ memoranda present legal arguments without outside factual evidence.

Carlisle v. Keith · filed 2005-04-19Rule 12(b)

Our review of the memoranda, leads this Court to the conclusion the documents did not present any factual evidence or allegations which the trial court could only properly address pursuant to a Rule 56 hearing for summary judgment. Rather, the memoranda reiterated the current status of the law, and only presented before the trial court the legal issue of whether plaintiff’s claims against defendant were barred by the statute of limitations.

When a court considers matters outside the pleadings on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, it treats the motion as one for summary judgment.

Barbee v. Johnson · filed 2008-05-06Rule 12(b)(6)

Because the trial court clearly considered matters outside the pleadings, we hold the trial court properly treated defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment.

A Rule 12(b)(6) motion is treated as a motion for summary judgment when the court considers matters outside the pleading.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Gaylor · filed 2008-05-06Rule 12(b)(6)

Because the superior court considered matters outside the pleading when it heard State Farms’s motion to dismiss, we review the superior court’s grant of State Farm’s motion to dismiss as the grant of a motion for summary judgment.

Rule 12(b) requires a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim to be treated as a summary judgment motion when the court considers matters outside the pleading.

Moore v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance · filed 2008-06-17Rule 12(b)

Because the trial court considered matters "outside the pleading" when it heard Nationwide's motion to dismiss, we review the trial court's grant of Nationwide's motion to dismiss as the grant of a motion for summary judgment.

Rule 12(b) treats a motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment when the trial court considers matters outside the pleadings.

Greene v. Colby · filed 2008-10-21Rule 12(b)

Here, defense counsel filed an affidavit and copies of the deeds to the tracts with the trial court and called the court's attention to the affidavit during the 2 October 2007 hearing; in addition, the trial court's order states that it was based upon, inter alia, the "affidavits submitted." Hence, defendant's motion is properly treated as one for summary judgment.

Rule 12(b)(6) motions and summary judgment motions apply different standards, but a later summary judgment ruling cannot overrule an earlier judge’s legal conclusion on the same issue.

Adkins v. Stanly County Board of Education · filed 2010-05-04Rule 12(b)(6)

The trial court’s standards for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment are different and present separate legal questions.

Rule 12(b) permits a dismissal motion to be treated as one for summary judgment when the court considers outside materials; a party who participates without requesting more time waives an objection to the conversion and lack of additional notice.

Blackburn v. Carbone · filed 2010-12-21Rule 12(b)

Having failed to “request a continuance or additional time to produce evidence” and having “participated in the hearing on the motion for summary judgment without objection or request for continuance,” Raintree Homeowners Assoc., 62 N.C. App. at 674, 303 S.E.2d at 582, Plaintiff waived the right to argue on appeal that the trial court erred by treating Defendants’ dismissal motion as one for summary judgment and deciding it on the merits in light of the materials presented at the hearing.

Rule 12(b) permits a motion to dismiss to be treated as a motion for summary judgment when the court considers matters outside the pleadings.

NEXSEN PRUET, PLLC v. Martin · filed 2011-06-21Rule 12(b)

The Estate’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim was properly treated as a cross-motion for summary judgment by virtue of the trial court’s consideration of matters outside the pleadings.

Rule 12(c) requires a motion for judgment on the pleadings to be treated as a summary judgment motion when the court considers matters outside the pleadings.

Horne ex rel. Heintzelman v. Town of Blowing Rock · filed 2012-10-02Rule 12(c)

In light of its consideration of the additional documents submitted by defendant, the moving party, as well as arguments presented by counsel, the trial court did not err in converting defendant’s Rule 12(c) motion into a motion for summary judgment.

Rule 12(b) requires a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to be treated as a summary judgment motion when the court considers matters outside the pleading.

Goodwin, by and Through Hales v. Four County Electric Care Trust, Inc. · filed 2016-12-20Rule 12(b)

Rule 12 provides that if matters outside the pleading are presented and considered by the court on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, “the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56[.]” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 12(b).

Rule 12(b) requires a motion to dismiss to be treated as a summary judgment motion when the court considers matters outside the pleading.

Blue v. Bhiro · filed 2022-05-06(b)

Rule 12(b) addresses a trial court’s consideration of matters not included in the complaint, providing that ... N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 12(b) (2021). Thus, “[a] Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss . . . is indeed converted to a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment when matters outside the pleading[ ] are presented to and not excluded by the court.”

Section 1A-1 requires a court deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to assess the legal sufficiency of the allegations, rather than require the evidentiary showing available at summary judgment under Rule 56.

Stephens v. DE IV · filed 2023-04-04Rule 12(b)(6); Rule 56

Here, Plaintiff has had no such opportunity, and it would be inappropriate to compare his allegations to a case that emerged from a significantly more developed evidentiary record.

Rule 56 governs a motion to dismiss that is treated as the equivalent of a motion for summary judgment.

Bookout v. Fruit of the Loom · filed 2004-06-28Rule 56

NCSIGA's Motion To Dismiss is treated as the equivalent of the Motion For Summary Judgment. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1 , Rule 56.

Rule 60(a) allows correction of clerical mistakes but does not permit correction of judicial errors that materially alter, modify, or vacate a final judgment.

Snell v. Washington County Board of Education · filed 1976-03-17(a)

G.S. 1A-1, Rule 60(a) does not alter the situation. The material amendment, modification or vacation of the 25 June 1975 order by the 6 August 1975 order is much more extensive than correction of clerical mistakes such as contemplated by Rule 60(a). The judgment of 25 June 1975 is regular upon its face. The 6 August 1975 amended order completely reverses the prior order as to court costs and bond. Thus, it appears that any error which the court attempted to correct was manifestly one of judicial decision and not a routine clerical error. Such error may not be corrected by denominating it as a clerical error.

Rule 60(a) permits a judge to correct an inadvertent clerical omission from a judgment to reflect the judge’s original intentions.

Matter of Peirce · filed 1981-08-18(a)

Judge Crotty’s statement suffices to show that the omission of the phrase, “the best interest of the minor child would be served by the termination of parental rights,” from the original judgment was an inadvertent clerical oversight. Thus, we think that Judge Crotty’s amendment of the judgment to conform it to his original intentions was correct under the authority of G.S. 1A-1, Rule 60(a).

Rule 60(a) permits correction of clerical errors or omissions but does not authorize changes to the parties’ substantive rights.

Hinson v. Hinson · filed 1985-12-31Rule 60(a)

The court’s authority under Rule 60(a) is limited to the correction of clerical errors or omissions. Courts do not have the power under Rule 60(a) to affect the substantive rights of the parties or correct substantive errors in their decisions.

Rule 60(a) allows correction of clerical mistakes but does not authorize substantive changes to an entered judgment.

Food Service Specialists v. Atlas Restaurant Management, Inc. · filed 1993-07-20(a)

While Rule 60 allows the trial court to correct clerical mistakes in its order, it does not grant the trial court the authority to make substantive modifications to an entered judgment.

Rule 60(a) permits courts to correct clerical errors or omissions in judgments, but not to affect the parties’ substantive rights or correct substantive errors.

Watson v. Watson · filed 1995-04-18(a)

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 60(a) (1990) addresses the correction of clerical mistakes in judgments. Section (a) permits the courts to correct clerical errors or omissions; however, courts do not have the power under this section to affect the substantive rights of the parties or to correct substantive errors in their decisions.

Rule 60(a) permits correction of a clerical error when the correction does not alter the effect of the original order.

Gordon v. Gordon · filed 1995-06-20Rule 60(a)

In light of a clearly typographical error and plaintiffs unqualified duty under the conclusions of law and the decretal portion of the order to continue making payments to defendant until defendant reached the age of sixty-two, we do not believe that the clerical correction altered the effect of the original order. Thus, the correction was proper under Rule 60(a).

Rule 60(a) does not permit relief for a judge’s failure to make findings about attorney’s fees when no fees were awarded.

Taylor v. Cadle · filed 1998-08-04Rule 60(a)

As such, since no attorney’s fees were awarded, he was not required to make findings regarding attorney’s fees and his failure to do so was not an omission under Rule 60(a).

Rule 60(a) permits correction of clerical omissions or errors in a judgment or order, but cannot be used to change substantive rights.

South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Hamlett · filed 2001-03-20(a)

This Court has consistently held that Rule 60(a) applies to clerical omissions or errors only, and may not be used to change the substantive rights of the parties.

Rule 60(a) permits correction of clerical mistakes but does not authorize changes that substantively affect the parties’ rights and duties.

Spencer v. Spencer · filed 2003-02-04Rule 60(a)

While the trial court’s order is logically correct, the relief granted substantively affected the rights and duties of the parties, and was thus not available under Rule 60(a).

Rule 60(a) permits a trial court to correct clerical mistakes or omissions during an appeal before docketing, or afterward with leave of the appellate division.

Young v. Young · filed 2005-03-15Rule 60(a)

Moreover, contrary to Lindquist’s assertion that, upon her filing a notice of appeal, the trial court lacked authority to correct the error, North Carolina General Statute section 1A-1, Rule 60(a), addressing clerical mistakes, makes plain that trial courts may correct mistakes or omissions even during the pendency of an appeal, either before the appeal is docketed in the appellate division or thereafter with leave of the appellate division.

Rule 60(a) permits a court to amend an order to correct typographical errors.

Blitz v. Xpress Image, Inc. · filed 2007-04-13Rule 60(a)

Pursuant to Rule 60(a) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court entered the Amended Order to correct two typographical errors.

Rule 60(a) permits a court to correct an inadvertently omitted standard of proof when the correction does not affect the parties’ substantive rights.

In the Matter of Ps · filed 2008-10-07Rule 60(a)

The trial court's findings are sufficient to show that the omission of the standard of proof language from the original order was an inadvertent clerical oversight. Respondent's parental rights were not affected in any way by the entry of the amended order, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting DSS's Rule 60(a) motion.

Rule 60(a) permits correction of an ambiguous written order as a clerical mistake when the correction reflects the ruling originally rendered.

Garner v. Garner · filed 2009-02-03Rule 60(a)

This ambiguity constitutes a clerical mistake which Judge Blick corrected in the 2007 order.

Rule 60(a) does not permit a trial court to add a finding that changes the effect of its original order.

Matter of Cncb · filed 2009-06-16Rule 60(a)

The presence or absence of the finding of fact that respondent lacked an appropriate alternative child care arrangement altered the effect of the order. The presence of the finding supports termination of parental rights, and in contrast, its absence would have precluded termination of parental rights. Therefore, the change was substantive and precluded by Rule 60(a).

Rule 60(a) does not permit a trial court to add a finding of fact that changes the effect of its original order.

In re C.N.C.B. · filed 2009-06-16Rule 60(a)

The presence or absence of the finding of fact that respondent lacked an appropriate alternative child care arrangement altered the effect of the order. The presence of the finding supports termination of parental rights, and in contrast, its absence would have precluded termination of parental rights. Therefore, the change was substantive and precluded by Rule 60(a).

Rule 60(a) allows discretionary correction of clerical errors, but not changes to damages that affect the parties’ substantive rights.

Watts v. N.C. Dept. of Envir. and Natural Res. · filed 2009-07-20Rule 60(a)

The Commission has corrected a typographical error in Finding of Fact 21, changing $96,024.30 to $96,044.30. However, the Full Commission declines to make the further changes to the amount of damages awarded and bases its decision upon the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court decisions concerning damages in this case, that relief under Rule 60(a) is discretionary, that no issue concerning the amount of damages was raised previously before the Commission or appellate Courts, and that the modification is outside the definition of a "clerical error" and affects substantive rights of the parties,. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1 , Rule 60(a).

Rule 60(a) permits correction of a clerical error in a judgment when the correction does not change the parties' substantive rights.

Reynolds v. Riggs · filed 2009-09-15Rule 60(a)

Accordingly, the correction of these errors was an appropriate exercise of the trial court's authority under Rule 60(a) to correct clerical errors.

Rule 60(a) does not permit a trial court to add a Rule 54(b) certification to an order when doing so substantively changes the order.

Newcomb v. County of Carteret · filed 2010-11-02Rule 60(a)

As in Pratt, the trial court in this case lacked the authority to use Rule 60(a) to add a certification pursuant to Rule 54(b) to the initial summary judgment order because that action altered the substance of the initial order.

Rule 60(a) allows a trial court to correct clerical errors after a notice of appeal, subject to the rule’s limits during an appeal.

Carpenter v. Carpenter · filed 2013-02-05Rule 60(a)

Despite the plaintiffs first notice of appeal, the trial court had jurisdiction to enter the Amended Order under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 60(a)... We will therefore consider plaintiff’s appeal based upon the 23 January 2012 amended order.

Rule 60’s clerical-mistake provision does not permit substantive changes to a custody order.

Davis v. Davis · filed 2013-09-17Rule 60(a)

The trial court’s changes also may not be properly characterized as corrections to “clerical mistakes” as contemplated by Rule 60 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.

Rule 60(a) allows a court to correct a clerical mistake in its order on its own motion if the correction does not substantively change the order.

In re M.M. · filed 2013-11-05Rule 60(a)

A court has the authority on its own motion to correct a clerical mistake in its judgment or order pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 60(a) (2011) as long as the correction does not substantively change the order or judgment. ... The changes do not have any substantive effect.

Rule 60(a) does not permit a trial court to add statutorily required findings of fact to an order after notice of appeal because that amendment is substantive.

In re Johnson · filed 2014-04-01Rule 60(a)

As such, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the amended order on 22 March where the amendment was to not to correct a clerical mistake in the order but to add statutorily required findings of fact and was, therefore, a substantive amendment.

Rule 60(a) does not authorize a court to change a judgment to extend probation when that change would affect substantive rights.

State v. Harwood · filed 2015-10-06Rule 60(a)

Additionally, even assuming the 2009 trial court made a mistake, we hold that this mistake would be a substantive error, rather than a clerical one. Changing this provision would retroactively extend defendant’s period of probation by more than one year and would grant the trial court subject matter jurisdiction to activate five consecutive sentences of 6 to 8 months’ imprisonment. Because this provision is substantive, we lack authority to change it under Rule 60(a).

Rule 60(a) permits correction of clerical mistakes in judgments with leave of the appellate court.

State v. Baker · filed 2016-04-19Rule 60(a)

Pursuant to Rule 60(a) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, clerical mistakes in judgments, orders or other parts of the record and errors may be corrected with leave of the appellate courts. ... Thus, this matter should be remanded to the trial court for correction of the clerical error in the judgment.

Rule 60(a) permits correction of an order’s clerical errors, including wording that mistakenly refers to both parents when the record shows the court meant only one.

In re: J.K. · filed 2017-04-04Rule 60(a)

After careful review of the record, we conclude the references to “the Respondents” instead of “Respondent Mother” in conclusions of law 2 and 7 were clerical errors.

Rule 60(a) permits a court to correct clerical errors in an order, including mistaken references to a party.

In re: J.K. · filed 2017-04-18Rule 60(a)

Thus, we conclude the references to “the Respondents” in conclusions of law 2 and 7 were clerical errors in that they should read “Respondent Mother” only. Accordingly, we remand the Permanency Planning Order to the trial court to correct the clerical errors in conclusions of law 2 and 7 to read “Respondent Mother.”

Rule 60(a) permits correction of clerical mistakes arising from oversight or omission, but an error resulting from a judicial determination cannot be corrected as a clerical error.

State v. Thompson · filed 2017-06-20Rule 60(a)

Trial court judges have the authority to correct “[c]lerical mistakes in judgments, orders or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight or omission[.]” N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule (60)(a) (2015). ... As the error resulted from a judicial determination, the case cannot be remanded as a clerical error.

Rule 60(a) may be used to amend a judgment to correct a misnamed party.

The Bank of Hampton Rds. v. Wilkins · filed 2019-08-06Rule 60(a)

Because our case law prior to the enactment of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure makes clear that a trial court can correct a misnomer in a judgment, we conclude Rule 60(a) may be an appropriate vehicle for amending a judgment to correct a misnamed party.

Rule 60(a) does not permit a court to re-date an order when doing so renews the time to appeal and changes the parties’ substantive rights.

In re: Meetze · filed 2020-07-21Rule 60(a)

Based on a straightforward application of Food Service Specialists, Inc., Ms. Peacock is correct that the Clerk (and the trial court in affirming the Clerk’s order on appeal) could not rely on Rule 60(a) to re-date the Assignment and Deficiency Judgment to 4 April 2019. In making that modification, the Clerk worked a substantial change by renewing the time in which the Batchelors could appeal those orders. Id. Such a result is plainly prohibited under Rule 60(a) and Food Service Specialists, Inc., and we hold that any reliance on that Rule by the Clerk and trial court constitutes error.

Rule 60(a) permits a court to correct an omitted checked box in an order when the omission was a clerical mistake.

Angarita v. Edwards · filed 2021-08-03Rule 60(a)

As explained above, Rule 60(a) expressly contemplates the correction of omissions, and a “clerical mistake” can include “the inadvertent checking of boxes on forms.” In re J.K.P., 238 N.C. App. at 343, 767 S.E.2d at 125. Based on the trial court’s findings and the evidence presented at the hearing, we conclude that the trial court most likely intended to originally check the box ordering that “[t]he defendant cease stalking the plaintiff,” and that the omission of the check on this box in the first order was a clerical mistake.

Rule 60(a) permits a court to correct an omitted check box when the omission is a clerical mistake rather than a substantive change to the order.

Angarita v. Edwards · filed 2021-08-03Rule 60(a)

We conclude the former characterization is more accurate—that the trial court’s amendment qualified as the correction of a simple clerical mistake in failing to check the appropriate box in its first order.

Rule 60(a) allows courts to correct clerical mistakes in judgments and orders but does not allow substantive changes.

Hinton v. N.C. Dep't of Pub. Safety · filed 2022-07-05(a)

Rule 60(a) confers upon our courts the power to correct defective orders: ... N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 60(a) (2021). However, “[c]ourts do not have the power under Rule 60(a) to affect the substantive rights of the parties or correct substantive errors in their decisions.”

Rule 60(a) permits correction of clerical mistakes in judgments and orders but does not permit correction of serious or substantial errors.

Bossian v. Bossian · filed 2022-07-05R. 60(a)

Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, R. 60, a judge is permitted to correct “[c]lerical mistakes in judgments, orders or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight or omission . . . on his own initiative or on the motion of any party and after such notice, if any, as the judge orders.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, R. 60. Relief under Rule 60(a) is limited to the “correction of clerical errors, [and] . . . it does not permit the correction of serious or substantial errors.” ... Accordingly, a trial court abuses its discretion and enters an order that is substantive and outside the scope of Rule 60(a) when it “alter[s] the effect of the [original] order.” ... We hold there was no abuse of discretion by Judge Stevens’ granting Plaintiff’s Rule 60(a) motion to correct the clerical errors in the Contempt Order.

Rule 60(a) applies only to changes made to a final order.

Pelc v. Pham · filed 2023-01-17Rule 60(a)

The additional conference held regarding the final form of the order to be entered occurred before the trial judge had entered the final order. Rule 60(a) only applies to changes made to a final order.

Rule 60(a) does not permit a trial court to add the required standard of proof to a termination order when the original order or hearing record does not establish that the standard was used; that addition is a substantive change.

In re: A.R.B. · filed 2023-06-06Rule 60(a)

Absent proper employment of the appropriate standard of proof by the trial court in either the written Order or the record of the proceedings, any subsequent addition including this standard of proof was substantive and an abuse of discretion.

Rule 40(b) requires a party seeking a continuance to show good cause and due diligence.

Shackelford v. Lundquist · filed 2014-05-06Rule 40(b)

Defendant has failed in her burden of showing due diligence in her response to Plaintiff’s action, and Defendant has failed in her burden of showing good cause and that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Defendant’s last-minute motion for a continuance.

Rule 40(b) permits a continuance only for good cause, which the moving party bears the burden of showing.

Daniel Boone Complex, Inc. v. Furst · filed 1982-05-18Rule 40(b)

G.S. 1A-1, Rule 40(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides that continuances “may be granted only for good cause shown. . . ”. Upon a motion for continuance, which is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, the burden is on the moving party to show the “good cause” required under the Rule.

Rule 40(b) leaves continuances to the trial court’s discretion; counsel’s withdrawal on the eve of trial alone does not require one.

Brown v. Rowe Chevrolet-Buick, Inc. · filed 1987-06-16Rule 40(b)

The general rule, however, is that the withdrawal of counsel on the eve of trial is not ipso facto grounds for continuance.

Rule 40(b) requires good cause for a continuance, with the sufficiency of the stated reasons left to the trial court’s discretion.

Jennings Glass Co., Inc. v. Brummer · filed 1987-12-15Rule 40(b)

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 40(b) (1983) requires a showing of good cause on motion for a continuance.

Rule 40(b) allows a continuance for good cause when inadequate notice of trial prejudices a party’s ability to prepare and present witnesses.

Benton v. Mintz · filed 1990-03-20Rule 40(b)

“No continuance shall be granted except upon application to the court. A continuance may be granted only for good cause shown and upon such terms and conditions as justice may require.” N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 40(b) (1983). ... Because nothing in the record here indicates the movant sought to delay or evade trial, and because the movant did not know trial was scheduled and because the movant’s ability to produce witnesses and prove its case was prejudiced thereby, we must grant a new trial.

Rule 40(b) permits a continuance for good cause, which a movant may fail to show by lacking diligence and good faith.

Wachovia Bank & Trust Co., N.A. v. Templeton Oldsmobile-Cadillac-Pontiac, Inc. · filed 1993-03-16Rule 40(b)

We find the evidence before the trial court was sufficient to support a finding that the moving party did not act with diligence and good faith and failed to show good cause in requesting the continuance.

Rule 40(b) allows a continuance only for good cause shown and as justice may require, within the trial judge's sound discretion.

Broome v. Broome · filed 1993-12-07(b)

A motion for continuance is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge and may be granted only for good cause shown and as justice may require.

Rule 40(b) permits a continuance for good cause; denying one may warrant a new trial when a party is unprepared because counsel withdrew shortly before trial and the party was misled about the issues to be heard.

Ruth v. Ruth · filed 2003-06-03Rule 40(b)

“A continuance may be granted only for good cause shown and upon such terms and conditions as justice may require.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 40(b) (2001). ... Moreover, nothing in the record here indicates that plaintiff sought to delay or evade the trial, and plaintiff was likely unaware or misled about the true nature of the trial. Accordingly, we grant a new trial.

Rule 56(f) requires a party seeking more discovery before summary judgment to show why it is necessary and how it would create a genuine issue of material fact.

Ripellino v. SCHOOL BOARD ASS'N, INC. · filed 2003-06-17Rule 56(f)

To prevail on a Rule 56(f) motion, the moving party has the burden of showing why additional discovery is necessary and how that discovery will create a genuine issue of material fact. ... The trial court did not err in denying plaintiffs' motion for a continuance to depose Davis when they failed to show that new information relevant to the limited issue presented in the summary judgment hearing would be discovered.

Rule 40(b) permits a continuance only for good cause shown.

Brown v. County of Avery · filed 2004-06-01Rule 40(b)

Continuances are granted “only for good cause shown and upon such terms and conditions as justice may require.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 40(b).

Rule 40(b) permits a continuance only for good cause shown, on terms that justice may require.

LUHMANN v. Hoenig · filed 2004-09-07Rule 40(b)

Rule 40 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure provides, "A continuance may be granted only for good cause shownand upon such terms and conditions as justice may require." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 40(b) (2003). ... Similarly, we are not persuaded the trial court abused its discretion in denying defendants' motion for a continuance.

Rule 40(b) permits a continuance when the moving party shows good cause, on terms that justice may require.

Draughon v. Harnett County Board of Education · filed 2004-10-05Rule 40(b)

Generally, continuances are not favored; May v. City of Durham, 136 N.C. App. 578, 581, 525 S.E.2d 223, 227 (2000); and therefore, the trial court should only grant a continuance where the moving party demonstrates “good cause ... and upon such terms and conditions as justice may require.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 40(b) (2003).

A continuance under Rule 40 requires good cause and rests in the court's discretion.

Gordon v. N.C. D.O.C. · filed 2005-09-09Rule 40(b)

Motions for continuance are in the discretion of the trial court for good cause shown. The plaintiff failed to show good cause for the continuance requested, as the allegations against the District Attorney's Office are unambiguous and the continuance would adduce no further allegations of fact or law. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1 , Rule 40.

Rule 40 requires good cause for a continuance; repeated delays and advance notice to obtain counsel did not justify another continuance.

McIntosh v. McIntosh · filed 2007-07-17Rule 40

In light of the numerous and lengthy delays in hearing this case, and of the trial court’s notice to Ms. McIntosh to hire an attorney and be ready to move forward at the September trial date, we agree with the trial court that Ms. McIntosh did not show good cause for, nor did justice require, another continuance.

Rule 40(b) requires an application to the court and good cause for a continuance; a telephone call after trial is calendared and a business meeting did not meet those requirements here.

CAROLINA FOREST ASS'N, INC. v. White · filed 2009-07-07Rule 40(b)

We conclude, therefore, that Defendants' application to the court for a continuance, via telephone, did not constitute a proper request for a continuance and that, wholly aside from this problem, Defendants did not show "good cause" that the trial court should grant any motion for a continuance Defendants actually made.

Rule 40(b) permits a continuance for good cause, and denying one can be an abuse of discretion when a party lacks a reasonable opportunity to obtain new counsel.

Skelly v. Skelly · filed 2011-09-20Rule 40(b)

Based on the unique facts of this case, and taking into consideration that Defendant did not know her motion to continue had been denied until the day before trial because Mr. Beyer failed to inform her, we believe Defendant had neither “reasonable notice” of withdrawal nor an adequate opportunity to secure other counsel. As such, we conclude the trial court abused its discretion by denying Defendant’s motion for a continuance. Defendant was entitled to a reasonable opportunity to obtain new counsel, which she did not receive.

Rule 40(b) permits a continuance for good cause and requires the trial judge to consider the circumstances before denying one.

Shankle v. Shankle · filed 1976-04-06Rule 40(b)

G.S. 1A-1, Rule 40(b) provides: “No continuance shall be granted except upon application to the court. A continuance may be granted only for good cause shown and upon such terms and conditions as justice may require.” ... We hold that the trial judge erred in denying respondents’ motion to continue without exploring the matter further.

Rule 30(b) permits a judge, on a timely motion, notice, and good cause, to limit or prohibit a deposition to protect a party or witness from unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, expense, or oppression.

Tennessee-Carolina Transportation, Inc. v. Strick Corp. · filed 1976-04-06(b)

Further the granting or denial of this protective order was addressed to the trial judge’s discretion and his ruling will not be disturbed absent a showing of abuse.

Rule 26(c) allows courts to control civil discovery by issuing protective orders for good cause after civil proceedings begin.

Matter of Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. · filed 1976-09-01(c)

These provisions empower the courts to control discovery by issuing protective orders, upon a showing of good cause, after criminal or civil proceedings have been initiated.

Rule 4(j)(9)c permits service by publication without issuing a summons when the party’s address, whereabouts, dwelling house or usual place of abode is unknown and cannot with due diligence be ascertained.

McCoy v. McCoy · filed 1976-04-07(j)(9)c

This case presents the question: Is issuance of a summons essential to validity of service of process by publication made pursuant to G.S. 1A-1, Rule 4(j) (9)c upon a party to a civil action whose “address, whereabouts, dwelling house or usual place of abode is unknown and cannot with due diligence be ascertained?” We hold that it is not.

Rule 58's entry requirements do not apply to a confession of judgment authorized under Rule 68.1.

Rivers v. Rivers · filed 1976-04-07Rule 58

The trial court was correct that Rule 58 did not apply to confession of judgment, and that defendant had not shown grounds for relief under Rule 60(b).

Rules 58 and 60 govern entry of judgment and allow clerical mistakes in judgments to be corrected by the judge at any time on the judge’s own initiative.

Arnold v. Varnum · filed 1977-09-07Rule 58; Rule 60

It is clear that Judge McKinnon purposely did not direct entry of judgment but directed that a judgment be prepared for submission to opposing counsel and to him for approval. It is also clear that under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 60, “Clerical mistakes in judgments, orders or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the judge at any time on his own initiative. ...” This Judge McKinnon has done, and in his denial of appellant’s motion to dismiss we find no reversible error.

Rule 58 permits a judge who renders judgment in open court to approve the written judgment and direct its prompt preparation and filing.

Condie v. Condie · filed 1981-04-21Rule 58

We hold that the record discloses that Judge Galloway had the authority under G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 58 to approve the form of the judgment and to direct its prompt preparation and filing, and that she properly exercised that authority when she approved the written judgment and signed it on 20 May 1980, and when the judgment was filed on 30 May 1980.

Rule 58 authorizes a trial court to approve a judgment’s form and direct its prompt preparation and filing; it does not require a written order within ten days of an oral ruling.

Matter of Allen · filed 1982-07-20Rule 58

Further, after a review of the Rules of Civil Procedure, we find no error under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 58. A trial court is directed to enter judgment pursuant to Rule 58. The trial court is given the “authority under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 58 to approve the form of the judgment and direct its prompt preparation and filing. . . .”

Rule 58 applies to judgments and orders in civil cases in district and superior court; it does not govern the time to appeal a clerk’s order in a probate matter.

In re the Estate of Trull · filed 1987-07-07Rule 58

Rule 58 applies to judgments and orders entered in civil cases in district and superior court.

Rule 58 treats a jury verdict announced in open court as a rendered judgment.

Stimpson Hosiery Mills, Inc. v. PAM Trading Corp. · filed 1990-06-05Rule 58

Here, when the jury announced its verdict in open court, it ‘rendered judgment’ according to Rule 3(a) and N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 58, and oral notice of appeal was a proper procedure.

Rule 58 specifies the requirements for entry of judgment.

In re the Estate of Walker · filed 1994-01-18Rule 58

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 58 specifies the requirements for entry of judgment. Since none of the requirements have been met in the instant case, there was no entry of judgment.

Rule 58’s purposes of an identifiable entry date and fair notice govern when a consent judgment is entered.

In Re Estate of Peebles · filed 1995-03-21Rule 58

Accordingly, we hold that entry of the consent judgment occurred when the judge signed it because it was at this point that the “intent and purpose” of Rule 58 were satisfied.

Under Rule 58, an oral announcement that does not resolve all matters is not entry of judgment; in these circumstances, entry occurred when the written judgment was filed.

In re Hawkins · filed 1995-11-07Rule 58

Neither does it fall within paragraph two because, as stated above, no judgment was “rendered” in open court since the trial judge’s oral announcement was not issued in the form of a final order subject to appellate review. ... Therefore, we hold entry of judgment did not occur until 31 August 1994.

Rule 58 requires a judgment subject to entry on or after 1 October 1994 to be reduced to writing, signed by the judge, and filed with the clerk before it is entered.

Worsham v. Richbourg's Sales & Rentals, Inc. · filed 1996-12-17Rule 58

Judgments, however, subject to entry on or after 1 October 1994, are governed by amended Rule 58 of the Rules of Civil Procedure which provides that entry of judgment occurs “when it is reduced to writing, signed by the judge, and filed with the clerk of court.”

Rule 58 defines entry of judgment as reducing it to writing, obtaining the judge’s signature, and filing it with the clerk; the same standard applies to entry of an order.

Abels v. Renfro Corp. · filed 1997-07-15Rule 58

While neither N.C.R. Civ. P. 58 nor any other statutory section addresses entry of an order, the purpose of N.C.R. App. P. 3 is best served by applying a like definition to entry of an order. Accordingly, an order is entered “when it is reduced to writing, signed by the judge, and filed with the clerk of court.”

Rule 58 applies to orders as well as judgments; an order is not effective until it is written, signed by the judge, and filed with the clerk of court.

Onslow County v. Moore · filed 1998-05-05Rule 58

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 58 states that “a judgment is entered when it is reduced to writing, signed by the judge, and filed with the clerk of court.” ... Applying the aforementioned principles in the instant case, because the order issuing the preliminary injunction was not filed with the Onslow County Clerk of Court until 26 March 1996, the order was not “entered,” and thus not effective or “in force” until that date.

Rule 58 requires an order to be written, signed by the judge, and filed with the clerk before it is enforceable; an oral ruling alone does not vacate an existing order.

West v. Marko · filed 1998-09-15Rule 58

It follows that an order rendered in open court is not enforceable until it is “entered,” i.e., until it is reduced to writing, signed by the judge, and filed with the clerk of court.

Rule 58 provides that a judgment is entered when it is reduced to writing, signed by the judge, and filed with the clerk of court.

Mastin v. Griffith · filed 1999-05-18Rule 58

Under Rule 58 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, “a judgment is entered when it is reduced to writing, signed by the judge, and filed with the clerk of court.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 58 (Cum. Supp. 1997).

Rule 58 makes a consent agreement a final judgment when the parties present it, the court approves it, and it is filed with the clerk.

Buckingham v. Buckingham · filed 1999-07-06Rule 58

Nevertheless, if a consent agreement is presented to the court by the parties who express their consent, is approved by the court and filed with the clerk of court, the agreement is a final judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.

Rule 58 says a judgment or order is entered when it is reduced to writing, signed by the judge, and filed with the clerk.

Stevens v. Guzman · filed 2000-12-05Rule 58

A judgment or order in a civil action is entered “when it is reduced to writing, signed by the judge, and filed with the clerk of court.”

Rule 52(a) requires specific factual findings in bench trials, and Rule 58 provides that an order is entered when reduced to writing, signed by the judge, and filed with the clerk.

State v. Coronel · filed 2001-08-07Rule 52(a); Rule 58

Rule 58 of our Rules of Civil Procedure provides: an order is entered when “reduced to writing, signed by the judge, and filed with the clerk of court.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 58 (1999) (emphasis added).

Rule 58 requires an objection to be directed to the signing of a judgment out of session to be valid.

Conseco Finance Servicing Corp. v. Dependable Housing, Inc. · filed 2002-05-07Rule 58

We find the objection lodged in defendants’ letter not specific enough to comply with Rule 58, which provides that the objection must be to the action of signing the judgment out of session. Here, defendants appear to be objecting to the contents of the order, not its entry out of session. Therefore, since no valid objection to the out of session entry of judgment was expressly given, we reject defendants’ argument.

Rule 63 permits a replacement district court judge to enter judgment after the original judge becomes unavailable and allows that judge to order a new hearing in the judge’s discretion.

In Re Pittman · filed 2002-06-18Rule 63

Accordingly, we remand to the trial court to enter an order or exercise its discretion in this matter consistent with Rule 63.

Rule 58 applies to judgments and orders in civil cases, and a party who does not expressly object is deemed to consent to entry of an order out of session.

Dalenko v. WAKE COUNTY DEPT. OF HUMAN SERV. · filed 2003-04-01Rule 58

We noted that under G.S. § 1A -1, Rule 58, which applies to both judgments and orders in civil cases, see In re Estate of Trull, 86 N.C.App. 361, 357 S.E.2d 437 (1987), a party will be deemed to have consented to the entry of an order out of session where that party does not expressly object.

Rule 58 treats a party who does not expressly object as consenting to entry of a civil order out of session.

Dalenko v. Wake County Department of Human Services · filed 2003-04-01Rule 58

We noted that under G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 58, which applies to both judgments and orders in civil cases, see In re Estate of Trull, 86 N.C. App. 361, 357 S.E.2d 437 (1987), a party will be deemed to have consented to the entry of an order out of session where that party does not expressly object. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 58 (2002). Here, the record fails to reflect that plaintiff objected when the trial court informed the parties that it would render a decision in the matter at a later date and out of session. In accordance with our prior opinion, this assignment of error is therefore overruled.

Rule 58 treats an order as entered when it is written, signed by the judge, and filed with the clerk; an order announced in open court is not enforceable before entry.

State v. Williams · filed 2004-03-16Rule 58

N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 58 (2003) provides that "a judgment is entered when it is reduced to writing, signed by the judge, and filed with the clerk of court." This Court has held that Rule 58 applies to orders as well as to judgments. ... Thus, in the case before us, the trial court's child support order was not enforceable between the parties until it was entered on 16 December 2002.

Rule 58 requires an order to be entered before it is enforceable; an oral announcement does not create an order that can be modified.

Carland v. Branch · filed 2004-05-18Rule 58

Since there was no order “entered” when defendant filed her motion to modify, there was nothing to modify.

Rule 58 requires a judgment to be written, signed, and filed; an oral ruling does not enter judgment or resolve claims before their dismissal.

Wilkerson v. Wilkerson · filed 2004-09-21Rule 58

Without entry of a written judgment, the issues of child custody and divorce were "pending" when the trial court dismissed all "pending" issues in the case on 29 July 2002. The 28 February 2003 judgment on the merits of plaintiff's claims was entered after plaintiff's claims had been dismissed and is void.

Rule 58 provides that a judgment is entered when it is reduced to writing, signed by the judge, and filed with the clerk of court.

Santana v. Santana · filed 2005-07-05Rule 58

"[A] judgment is entered when it is reduced to writing, signed by the judge, and filed with the clerk of court." N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 58 (2003). ... Consequently, the absolute divorce did not become final until entry of judgment on 19 August 2003.

Rule 58 provides that a judgment is entered when it is written, signed, and filed, and permits the trial court to direct the prevailing party to draft the order.

In the Matter of JB · filed 2005-08-02Rule 58

N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 58 (2003) provides that a judgment is entered when it is reduced to writing, signed by the trial court, and filed with the clerk of court. Nothing in the statute or common practice precludes the trial court from directing the prevailing party to draft an order on its behalf.

Rule 58 treats a judgment as entered when it is written, signed by the court, and filed with the clerk; the court may direct the prevailing party to draft the order.

In re J.B. · filed 2005-08-02Rule 58

N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 58 (2003) provides that a judgment is entered when it is reduced to writing, signed by the trial court, and filed with the clerk of court. Nothing in the statute or common practice precludes the trial court from directing the prevailing party to draft an order on its behalf.

Rule 58 permits a written judgment that conforms in general terms with an oral judgment pronounced in open court.

Edwards v. Taylor · filed 2007-04-17Rule 58

If the written judgment conforms generally with the oral judgment, the judgment is valid. ... We therefore hold that the written order of the trial court conforms with the oral judgment pronounced in open court.

Rule 58 requires a judgment to be reduced to writing, signed by the judge, and filed with the clerk before it is entered.

Carter v. Hill · filed 2007-10-16Rule 58

“[A] judgment is entered when it is reduced to writing, signed by the judge, and filed with the clerk of court.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 58 (2005). Since no judgment was reduced to writing, defendants could not have failed to comply with an order of the court to pay $2,480 at the time the trial court found defendants in civil contempt.