J.M. DEVELOPMENT GROUP
v
.
DARRELL GLOVER and ROSINA GLOVER
Haywood, Denny & Miller, LLP, by Robert E. Levin, for
plaintiff-appellee.
North Central Legal Assistance Program, by John W. Van Alst,
for defendant-appellant.
THOMAS, Judge.
Defendant Rosina Glover appeals the trial court's enforcement
of an out-of-state judgment. However, because the trial court's
order does not contain requested findings of facts and conclusions
of law, we do not reach that ultimate issue.
The evidence tends to show that defendant and her husband,
defendant Darrell Glover, lived together with their six children in
New Jersey. In 1995, Darrell abandoned his wife and children and
moved into an apartment in New York with a female co-worker named
Terry. In 1998, Rosina's home in New Jersey became uninhabitabledue to a fire and she moved with her children to North Carolina.
In September 1998, Rosina was served with a notice for entry
of a $13,965.35 New York judgment against her for rent owed on an
apartment in Brooklyn, New York. Rosina claims the apartment was
leased by Darrell and Terry, not her. The lease application, in
fact, is in the name of Darrell and Terry Glover. Terry wrote on
the application that her occupation was with the New York
Department of Corrections. No children were listed as occupants.
Rosina has never been employed with the New York Department of
Corrections, has never used the name “Terry,” and since their
birth, has never resided anywhere without her children.
Darrell and Terry were in arrears in their rent payments from
March 1995 to March 1997. Being unable to locate the pair,
plaintiff, J.M. Development Group, employed a private investigator.
The investigator determined that Darrell was living in the New
Jersey home that was damaged by fire. The investigator indicated
that Rosina Glover lived at the same address. Based on the
investigator's information, plaintiff sued Darrell and Rosina
instead of Darrell and Terry for the past due rent.
Service of the original New York complaint was obtained upon
Rosina by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint with her
sister, Lola Kirkland, in Durham County, North Carolina. Although
Rosina and her children were staying there at the time, Kirklandnever informed Rosina of the notice. Thus, Rosina did not respond
to the lawsuit and never appeared in the New York action.
A default judgment was obtained solely against Rosina Glover.
Terry Glover is not mentioned in the judgment.
When Rosina received notice of the judgment, she filed a
notice of defense, claiming: (1) she was not personally served in
New York; (2) she never appeared in the proceedings; (3) she never
agreed to submit to New York's jurisdiction; (4) she was never
domiciled in New York; (5) the proceedings do not arise out of her
operation of a motor vehicle or airplane in New York; and (6) the
New York judgment was based upon Darrell Glover's fraud. In an
attached affidavit, Rosina stated: (a) Darrell abandoned her and
their children; (b) she has not lived with Darrell since 1995; (c)
she has had no contact with Darrell since 1998; (d) she has never
lived at 189 Jefferson Avenue in Brooklyn, New York; and (e) she
never entered into any lease agreement regarding 189 Jefferson
Avenue in Brooklyn, New York.
On 20 November 2000, plaintiff filed a motion to enforce the
New York judgment pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1C-1705(b). The
trial court granted the motion. Rosina Glover appeals.
Defendant argues the trial court erred in failing to make
specific findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Rules
52(a)(1) and 52(a)(2) of the North Carolina Rules of CivilProcedure. We agree.
The trial judge is not required to make specific findings of
facts and conclusions of law absent a request to do so by the
parties. Allen v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co., 35 N.C. App. 267, 241
S.E.2d 123 (1978). A request is untimely if made after the entry
of a trial court's order. Nobles v. First Carolina Communications,
Inc., 108 N.C. App. 127, 423 S.E.2d 312 (1992), rev. denied, 333
N.C. 463, 427 S.E.2d 623 (1993). A “judgment is entered when it is
reduced to writing, signed by the judge, and filed with the clerk
of court.” N.C. R. Civ. P. 58.
In the instant case, the trial court denied defendant's
request because it was “untimely.” The trial court's order was
announced in open court and signed on 10 January 2001. The defense
made a request for findings of fact on the next day. The order was
not filed with the clerk of court until 12 January 2001. Thus, the
request was timely and the trial court should have granted
defendant's request. Accordingly, we reverse and remand this issue
to the trial court for appropriate findings and do not reach
defendant's remaining assignments of error.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Judges MARTIN and TYSON concur.
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***