Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Watson v. Ben Griffin Realty & Auction, Inc.
Citations: 493 S.E.2d 331; 128 N.C. App. 61; 1997 N.C. App. LEXIS 1197Docket: COA97-186
Court: Court of Appeals of North Carolina; December 2, 1997; North Carolina; State Appellate Court
On April 25, 1989, Ben Griffin Realty and Auction, Inc. (Griffin) offered 4.876 acres of land to Kenneth and Martha Watson, claiming that the "old farm road" provided access to the property. Subsequently, a title opinion from the law firm Carpenter, Wilson, Cannon. Blair, P.A. confirmed this access. Relying on these representations, the Watsons purchased the property for $12,000. They later learned there was no enforceable right of way over the adjoining property owned by Emma Wilcox, which the "old farm road" traversed. On August 28, 1992, the Watsons filed a lawsuit against Wilcox for trespassing and emotional distress, claiming no enforceable easement existed. Their case was dismissed after Kenneth Watson failed to appear for depositions. Wilcox then sued the Watsons for trespass, resulting in a permanent injunction against them from accessing her land, including the old farm road. In response, the Watsons filed the current case against Griffin and the law firm, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation, negligence, and emotional distress due to their lack of access to the property. On August 19, 1996, the trial court granted directed verdicts for both defendants and issued a declaratory judgment recognizing an easement across Wilcox's property to the Watsons. The court also deemed previous judgments erroneous, allowing the Watsons to use the farm road without violating the injunction. After the judgment was served, Wilcox moved to set it aside under N.C.Gen. Stat. 1A-1, Rule 60, arguing she was not a party to the suit. The trial court denied her motion, prompting her appeal on the grounds of whether the court erred in not setting aside the judgment regarding her interests. Wilcox argues that the judgment indicates the trial judge: 1) overruled other superior court judges; and 2) determined the property rights of a non-party without jurisdiction and without notice. Under N.C.Gen. Stat. 1A-1, Rule 60, the court can relieve a party from a final judgment if it is void or for other valid reasons. However, case law, including Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. v. Langdon and Helbein v. Southern Metals Co., establishes that Rule 60 relief is only available to parties, not non-parties. In this case, the judgment appears to have improperly determined a non-party's rights. Consequently, since no party filed a Rule 60 motion, relief cannot be granted to Wilcox, who cannot appeal the trial court’s ruling as a non-party. The appropriate remedy for her is to file an independent action to challenge the judgment. The court noted that if the trial court lacked jurisdiction over Wilcox, the judgment is void concerning her. The appeal was dismissed as Rule 60 relief is not applicable to non-parties. Additionally, Judge Walker concurred, suggesting that Wilcox could seek to intervene in the matter under Rule 24 of the N.C. Rules of Civil Procedure, citing that her property interests are affected by the judgment, which constitutes an extraordinary circumstance.