Civil Practice – Order to Enforce – Motion to Amend

Where Plaintiffs failed to timely appeal the Order to Enforce, we do not have jurisdiction to review that portion of Plaintiffs’ appeal.

We do not have jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs’ first argument regarding the Order to Enforce, and we affirmed the trial court’s denial of Plaintiffs’ motion to amend.

Plaintiffs, in her individual capacity and in the capacity as Administratrix of the subject Estate, appealed from the trial court’s order enforcing a settlement agreement between Plaintiffs and Defendants. On appeal, Plaintiffs argued the trial court erred, first, by granting Defendants’ motion to enforce the settlement agreement and, second, by denying Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the trial court’s judgment pursuant to Rules 59(e) and 60(b).

Because our courts have elected to treat motions to enforce settlement agreements as summary judgments, and because Rule 59 is not a proper ground for relief from summary judgments, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend was not a proper Rule 59 motion. In holding Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend was not a proper Rule 59 motion, we further held Plaintiffs’ appeal time was not tolled. Accordingly, where Plaintiffs failed to timely appeal the Order to Enforce, we do not have jurisdiction to review that portion of Plaintiffs’ appeal.

On appeal, Plaintiffs argued the trial court erred by denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider pursuant to Rule 54(b), and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend pursuant to Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b). We disagree. First, we address the trial court’s denial of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider pursuant to Rule 54(b) and Motion to Amend, specifically as to Rule 59(e). Because we determined this specific use of Rule 54(b) was improper regarding a non-interlocutory order, and Plaintiffs’ Rule 59(e) motion was improper where there was no trial on the merits, we overruled Plaintiffs’ arguments and affirmed the trial court’s denial of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider pursuant to Rule 54(b) and Motion to Amend, specifically as to Rule 59(e).

We further concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend for misrepresentation. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ argument that the trial court misunderstood the legal definition of “tender” effectively asserts that the trial court made an error of law. However, Rule 60 does not provide relief from errors of law. As such, we concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend.

Affirmed.

Welbourne v. Barbee (Lawyers’ Weekly No. 011-297-25, 26 pp.) (Julee Flood, J.) Appealed from Rutherford County Superior Court (James Thomas Davis, J.) White & Stradley, PLLC, by J. David Stradley and Ann C. Ochsner, and Farmer & Morris Law, PLLC, by Joshua Farmer, for plaintiffs-appellants. Robinson Gooding Law, by William C. Robinson and Dorothy M. Gooding, for defendants-appellees. North Carolina Court of Appeals