JAMES KIER,
Plaintiff,
v
.
Pitt County
No. 00 CVD 2224
KATHY KIER
Defendant.
Jeffrey L. Miller, for plaintiff-appellant.
Kathy Kier, pro se.
LEVINSON, Judge.
On 17 July 2000, plaintiff instituted a new action seeking a
Domestic Violence Protective Order under N.C.G.S. § 50B. No other
relief was sought. Plaintiff claimed defendant assaulted him and
threatened future harm. On 24 July 2000, a hearing on the merits
of plaintiff's complaint was held during which the defendant fully
participated. The trial court entered a one year Domestic Violence
Protective Order.
On 24 August 2000, defendant filed a pleading which included
(1) a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted; (2) a Rule 60 motion to set aside
the N.C.G.S. § 50B order; and (3) denials of the substantiveallegations in plaintiff's Chapter 50B complaint and seven separate
counterclaims. Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the defendant's
Rule 12(b)(6) motion, answer, and counterclaims. Defendant's Rule
60 motion was dismissed by the trial court and is not at issue.
The trial court denied plaintiff's motion to dismiss and strike
defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) motion, denials, and counterclaims.
Plaintiff appeals.
Defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) motion was raised for the first timeafter a final judgment had been rendered and was therefore
untimely.
Because defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) motion did not meet the
standards set forth by Rule 12 and it was made after final judgment
was rendered, it was not timely, and the trial court's denial of
plaintiff's motion to dismiss it was error.
Plaintiff next assigns as error the trial court's denial of
his motion to strike defendant's denials of the substantive
allegations in plaintiff's complaint and her counterclaims. First,
it is self-evident that defendant's denials concerning the
substantive allegations of plaintiff's complaint have no effect.
It was error to deny plaintiff's motion to strike these denials.
Concerning the trial court's denial of plaintiff's motion to strike
defendant's counterclaims, at the time of filing on 24 August 2000,
the trial court already resolved the merits of plaintiff's original
Chapter 50B complaint. The trial court's order dated 24 July 2000
achieved finality in the case. Thereafter, it was too late for the
defendant to assert any new defenses or counterclaims within this
action. Walker Frames v. Shively, 123 N.C. App. 643, 646, 473
S.E.2d 776, 778 (1996) (plaintiff's voluntary dismissal of the case
terminated all adversary proceedings in the case and defendant
could not properly counterclaim for damages). In the absence of an
ongoing lawsuit, a party has no right to assert counterclaims. Id.
Therefore, the trial court's denial of plaintiff's motion to strike
defendant's substantive denials and counterclaims was error. As plaintiff concedes, defendant is not precluded from filing
an independent action. We need not address whether defendant's
counterclaims are barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel or,
further, whether they are compulsory or permissive counterclaims
pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 1A-1 13 (2001). At the appropriate time,
defendant may assert any applicable defenses in a subsequent
proceeding.
It was error for the trial judge to deny plaintiff's motion to
strike and dismiss defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) motion, substantive
denials and counterclaims.
Reversed and Remanded.
Chief Judge EAGLES and Judge BRYANT concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***