Civil Practice – Voluntary Dismissal – Motion to Enforce Settlement

The trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying relief under Rule 60(b)(6) for a voluntary dismissal, but the court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the motion to enforce an alleged settlement.

We affirmed the trial court’s denial of the Rule 60(b)(6) Motion for Relief from Judgment. We vacated the trial court’s denial of the Motion to Enforce Settlement.

Unnamed Defendant Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company appealed an order that denied its Rule 60(b)(6) Motion for Relief from Judgment and its Motion to Enforce Settlement in a personal injury case arising from a 2017 car accident involving Plaintiff and Defendants.

On January 6, 2020, North Carolina Farm Bureau Insurance Group (NCFB), Defendants’ insurer, offered its policy limits of $30,000 to Plaintiff in exchange for a release from further liability. Unnamed Defendant, Plaintiff’s insurer providing underinsured motorist coverage, advanced the $30,000 to Plaintiff to preserve subrogation rights. Plaintiff filed a negligence complaint against Defendants on September 18, 2020, and Defendants denied liability, asserting contributory negligence. Unnamed Defendant filed a conditional answer under N.C. Gen. Stat. §20-279.21(b)(4), allowing insurers to appear and protect subrogation rights without being named parties.

A trial date was set for June 13, 2022; however, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice on May 23, 2022, under Rule 41. Over the following years, settlement discussions continued, but Defendants and NCFB allegedly refused to comply with a purported settlement agreement. On October 18, 2024, Unnamed Defendant filed a Motion to Enforce Settlement, and at the October 21 hearing, Plaintiff moved orally to set aside the voluntary dismissal under Rule 60(b)(6) to allow judicial enforcement of the alleged settlement. Unnamed Defendant acknowledged it could have filed a separate breach-of-settlement lawsuit but instead chose to pursue enforcement via Rule 60(b)(6) as more “efficient.” The trial court took the motions under advisement.

On October 29, 2024, the court denied both motions, ruling that Unnamed Defendant failed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances or a need for justice to warrant relief under Rule 60(b)(6). The Court of Appeals noted that relief under Rule 60(b)(6) requires both extraordinary circumstances and a showing that justice demands reopening the case. Because Plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal could have been addressed by filing a separate lawsuit on the alleged settlement, Unnamed Defendant’s chosen procedural route reflected a strategic risk rather than a compelling reason for relief. Accordingly, the trial court’s denial of the Rule 60(b)(6) Motion was not an abuse of discretion.

The Court of Appeals also addressed the Motion to Enforce Settlement. Because Plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal remained in effect after the denial of the Rule 60(b)(6) motion, no action was pending in the trial court, leaving the court without jurisdiction to enforce the alleged settlement. Thus, the trial court’s order denying the Motion to Enforce Settlement was void for lack of jurisdiction.

Affirmed in part; vacated in part.

Crumel v. Morton (Lawyers Weekly No. 011-012-26, 10 pp.) (Tobias Hampson, J.) Appealed from Nash County Superior Court (William D. Wolfe, J.) No brief filed for Plaintiff-Appellee William Fitzgerald Crumel. Poyner Spruill LLP, by J. Nicholas Ellis and John J. Ferebee, III, for Defendants-Appellees Melissa Croom Morton and Sarah Elizabeth Anne Morton. Pinto Coates Kyre & Bowers, PLLC, by Britney M. Millisor, Richard L. Pinto, and Lyn K. Broom, for Unnamed Defendant-Appellant Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company. North Carolina Court of Appeals