In Re Se. Eye Ctr. (Ebw Judgment)

In re Se. Eye Ctr. (EBW Judgment), 

.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA                             IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                        SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
COUNTY OF GUILFORD                                             12 CVS 11322


IN RE SOUTHEASTERN EYE                               ORDER AND OPINION ON THE
CENTER-JUDGMENTS                                       RECEIVER’S MOTION FOR
                                                      ADDITIONAL FINDINGS AND
                                                         MODIFICATION AND
                                                           AMENDMENT OF
                                                       INTERLOCUTORY ORDER
                                                          (EBW JUDGMENT)




   1.     THIS MATTER is before the Court upon the Receiver Gerald A. Jeutter,

Jr.’s (the “Receiver”) Motion for Additional Findings and Modifications and

Amendment of Interlocutory Order (EBW Judgment) (the “Motion”) in the above-

captioned case.

   2.     Having considered the Motion, the parties’ opening and response briefs,

the Receiver’s supplemental brief, and the arguments of counsel at the hearing on

July 25, 2017, the Court DENIES the Motion as set forth below.

        Oak City Law LLP, by Robert E. Fields, III, for Receiver Gerald A.
        Jeutter, Jr.

        Defendant Douglas S. Harris, pro se.

Bledsoe, Judge.

                                               I.

                    PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

   3.     This Motion seeks modifications to the Court’s Order and Opinion dated

May 4, 2017 (the “Opinion”), (ECF No. 432). The Court incorporates herein the
procedural and factual background set forth in Section I of the Opinion and only

recites subsequent procedural and factual background to the extent necessary to

resolve the Receiver’s Motion.

    4.   In the Opinion, the Court granted Douglas Harris’s (“Harris”) Motion to

Release [the Barton] Judgment, denied the Receiver’s Motion for Application of Full

Faith and Credit and Res Judicata, and ordered the Guilford County Clerk of

Superior Court to “(i) mark on the judgment docket for Charles M. Ivey, III, as

Chapter 7 Trustee for EBW Laser, Inc. and EBW, Inc. v. James Mark McDaniel, C.

Richard Epes and Douglas Harris (Guilford County Superior Court, No. 12-CVS-

11322) that the Barton Judgment is paid and satisfied in full and (ii) forward a

certificate of payment in full to the clerk of superior court in each county to which a

transcript of the Judgment has been sent.” (Opinion 20–21, ECF No. 432.) The

Court further ordered “the Receiver to cease and desist all collection activities to

recover on the Barton Judgment.” (ECF No. 432 at 21.)

    5.   The Opinion was stamped and filed by the Guilford County Clerk of

Superior Court on May 9, 2017.

    6.   On May 19, 2017, the Receiver filed this Motion and initial Brief through

the North Carolina Business Court’s electronic filing system with service on all

parties. The Receiver moves for relief pursuant to Rule 52 and 54, and, in the

alternative, under Rules 59 and 60, of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure.1




1 The Court is required to write an opinion resolving motions made under Rules 59 and 60.
See N.C. Gen. Stat. 7A-45.3.
   7.    The Court convened a telephone status conference on the Motion on May

25, 2017. By oral and written order that same day, the Court ordered the Receiver

to file a supplemental brief to address “(i) the rules under which the Motion is made

and how those rules authorize the requests in the Motion; (ii) the justification for

the amendments requested in the Motion; (iii) the justification for the Receiver’s

request in the Motion that the Court authorize an appeal and other action as set

forth in the Motion; and (iv) the necessity and proprietary of a final report, and the

contents thereof [sic], in the procedural context of the EBW Judgment litigation

(Guilford County Superior Court, No. 12-CVS-11322).” (Scheduling Order (EBW

Judgment) 1–2, ECF No. 440.)

   8.    On May 26, 2017, the Receiver’s Motion was stamped and filed by the

Guilford County Clerk of Superior Court.

   9.    The Receiver filed his supplemental brief on June 9, 2017, and Harris filed

his response opposing the Motion on July 1, 2017.

   10.   The Court held a hearing on the Motion on July 25, 2017, at which Harris,

the Receiver, and counsel for the Receiver were present.

                                           II.

                                  RULES 52 AND 54

   11.   Rule 52 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure provides that

“[u]pon motion of a party made not later than 10 days after entry of judgment the

court may amend its findings or make additional findings and may amend the
judgment accordingly.”     “[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. 58.2

    12.   “The primary purpose of a Rule 52(b) motion is to enable the appellate

court to obtain a correct understanding of the factual issues determined by the trial

court. If a trial court has omitted certain essential findings of fact, a motion under

Rule 52(b) can correct this oversight and avoid remand by the appellate court for

further findings.” Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. Home Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 

, 198–99, 

 (1987) (citation omitted); see also

Parrish v. Cole, 

, 

 (1978) (to similar effect).

Denial of a Rule 52 motion is proper when the findings of fact supporting the entry

of judgment were sufficient. Branch Banking, 

, 

.

    13.   Here, the Receiver seeks to add six amendments and additional findings of

fact to the Opinion. The Receiver offers the first four modifications in order to

“clarify” and “to provide context.” (Receiver’s Br. Supp. Mot. 2–4, ECF No. 435.)

The Court has reviewed the requested amendments and additional findings of fact

and concludes that they are either not supported by the record or necessary to

“correct [an] oversight” or to “avoid remand by the appellate court for further

findings” or both. Branch Banking, 85 N.C. App. at 198–99, 

(citation omitted). The Court will briefly discuss each in turn.

2 Harris objects to the Motion as untimely to the extent it is brought under Rule 52 and 59.
(Harris’s Resp. 6–7, ECF No. 453.) The Motion, however, was filed on the North Carolina
Business Court’s electronic filing system within ten days of the filing of the May 4, 2017
Opinion with the Guilford County Clerk of Superior Court. Therefore, the Court concludes
that Harris’s timeliness objection is without merit.
   14.   The Receiver’s first request seeks to specifically include Bessie Epes as one

of the “other defendants” in the “Trustee Recovery Litigation” referenced in

paragraph 9 of the Opinion. (ECF No. 435 at 2.) The Court declines to make this

requested modification, finding it unnecessary because the Court identified the

Trustee Recovery Litigation by its specific case caption in the United States

Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The case file for that

proceeding is a matter of public record and can be consulted by any reviewing court

to determine the identities of all defendants in that litigation. The Court further

notes that Bessie Epes is not identified as a defendant in the specific adversary

proceeding described in the bankruptcy court’s Order Approving Settlement of

Controversy, which is cited in paragraph 9 of the Opinion.         Order Approving

Settlement of Controversy at 1, Ivey v. McDaniel (In re EBW Laser, Inc., Nos. 05-

10220C-7G, 05-10221C-7G), No. 07-2004 (Bankr. M.D.N.C. Oct. 16, 2013), ECF No.

625.

   15.   The Receiver’s second request seeks to add information to footnote 3 on

page 5 of the Opinion concerning the circumstances of Harris’s withdrawal of his

objection to the Trustee’s Motion for Authority to Settle Controversy in the federal

bankruptcy court. (ECF No. 435 at 2–3.) The Court declines to make the requested

modification, again finding it unnecessary in light of the Court’s citation to the

Order Approving Trustee Settlement at pages 5–7, and 10, a document, which

describes the terms and conditions of Harris’s withdrawal of his objection and which
is readily available on the public record in the Trustee Recovery Litigation in the

federal bankruptcy court.

   16.   The Receiver’s third and fourth requests seek to add information to

paragraph 35 of the Opinion, which states that “[t]he Receiver has not argued, nor

is the Court prepared to conclude, that the UEFJA is preempted or otherwise

without application here.”    (ECF No. 432 at 13.)       The Receiver requests two

additional findings: (i) that paragraph 35 be modified to state that “[t]he Receiver’s

request for Full Faith and Credit, a federal constitutional doctrine, and reliance on

federal cases addressing satisfaction of federal question judgments presented an

issue as to whether federal law preempts the UEFJA” and (ii) that paragraph 35 be

modified to state that “the Receiver has not argued explicitly . . . that the UEFJA is

preempted or otherwise without application here.”. (ECF No. 435 at 3–4.) The

Court declines to make the requested modifications, again finding it unnecessary,

this time because the Receiver’s brief is available as a matter of public record and a

transcript of the hearing on the motions resolved in the Opinion will be available to

any appellate court reviewing this matter.

   17.   In sum, the Court is not persuaded that the Receiver’s request that the

Court “clarify” and “provide context” to the Opinion through the first four proposed

amendments is compelled or appropriate under Rule 52.

   18.   The Receiver’s fifth and sixth proposed amendments seek findings of fact

authorizing him “to abandon the [Barton] Judgment to Bessie Epes” or, in the

alternative, to “add findings to clarify the Receiver’s authority to pursue any
appellate review” of the Opinion and to “direct[] [him] to file a final report as to the

[Barton] Judgment.”        (ECF No. 435 at 4–5.)       As with the first four proposed

amendments, however, the Court is not persuaded that these proposed

modifications are necessary to “correct [an] oversight” or “avoid remand by the

appellate court for further findings.” Branch Banking, 85 N.C. App. at 198–99, 

 (citation omitted). To the contrary, the proposed amendments seek

the Court’s authorization to take certain additional actions relating to the Barton

Judgment, not to clarify or add essential facts to the Opinion. 

 at 198–99, 

.       As such, the Court finds no basis under Rule 52 to justify the

Receiver’s fifth and sixth proposed amendments, but nonetheless addresses these

specific requests more fully in Section IV infra.

      19.    In sum, therefore, the Court concludes, in the exercise of its discretion,

that the Receiver’s Motion should be denied to the extent it is brought under Rule

52.

      20.    The Receiver also moves under Rule 54, arguing that “a court may modify

or revise an interlocutory ruling at any time prior to final judgment” under that

Rule.       (ECF No. 435 at 1.) As an initial matter, the parties vigorously debate

whether the Opinion is a final judgment;3 Harris contends that it is, necessarily

defeating the Motion under Rule 54, and the Receiver argues that is not, asserting

that the Court thus has broad authority under Rule 54 to modify its ruling. The


3 “A final judgment is one which disposes of the cause as to all parties, leaving nothing to
be judicially determined between them in the trial court.” State v. Sanchez, 

, 

 (2005) (quoting Veazey v. Durham, 

, 361–62, 

 (1950)).
Court concludes, however, that it need not determine whether the Opinion is a final

judgment to resolve the Motion because, in either event, the Receiver’s Motion

under Rule 54 must fail.

    21.   By its plain and unambiguous terms, Rule 54 does not permit amendment

of a final judgment. Thus, to the extent the Opinion is a final judgment, the Motion

must be denied.

    22.   The same result obtains to the extent the Opinion is an interlocutory

order. Although the North Carolina courts have not formulated a standard to guide

trial courts in considering a motion to amend an interlocutory ruling under Rule

54(b), federal case law addressing similarly worded portions of Federal Rule 54(b)

provides useful guidance. See Tetra Tech Tesoro, Inc. v. JAAAT Tech. Servs., LLC,

 (N.C. App. 2016) (citing Akeva, L.L.C. v. Adidas Am., Inc., 

 (M.D.N.C. 2005)).4

    23.   Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, like Rule 54(b) of the

North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, does not “set out any standard for

reconsideration of interlocutory orders”; however, most federal courts “adhere to a

fairly narrow set of grounds on which to reconsider their interlocutory orders and

opinions.” Akeva, L.L.C., 

. In particular, under Federal Rule

54(b), interlocutory decisions “may not usually be changed unless there is ‘an

intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need


4 Federal decisions interpreting the federal rules are considered persuasive authority when
interpreting similar state rules in the courts of this State. See e.g., Crowley v. Crowley, 

, 

 (2010).
to correct a clear error or prevent a manifest injustice.’”        Official Comm. of

Unsecured Creditors of Color Tile, Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand, L.L.P., 

 (2d Cir. 2003) (quoting Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd. v. Nat’l Mediation Bd., 

, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992)). Although neither binding on this Court nor an

exhaustive list of permissible considerations under Rule 54(b), the Court finds this

federal guidance persuasive in the absence of contrary controlling case law from the

North Carolina appellate courts.

   24.   After careful review of the Receiver’s Motion, the Court cannot conclude

that modification of the Opinion is required or appropriate under Rule 54(b) under

the circumstances. First, the Receiver does not identify “an intervening change of

controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error

or prevent a manifest injustice” in offering his proposed modifications. Id. (quoting

Virgin Atl. Airways, Ltd., 956 F.2d at 1255). Moreover, the Court finds that the

Receiver’s first four requests are unnecessary for the same reasons discussed in

connection with Rule 52 above. Finally, the Receiver’s requested modifications to

authorize the Receiver to take certain actions do not require a modification of the

Opinion, and each is addressed more fully in Section IV infra.

   25.   For each of these reasons, therefore, the Court concludes, in the exercise of

its discretion, that the Receiver’s Motion should be denied to the extent it is brought

under Rule 54.
                                              III.

                                      RULES 59 AND 60

   26.     In the alternative, the Receiver seeks to obtain his requested amendments

under Rules 59 and 60.         Under Rule 59(e), “[a] motion to alter or amend the

judgment under section (a) of this rule shall be served not later than 10 days after

entry of the judgment.” “A Rule 59(e) motion for relief from a judgment must be

based on one of the grounds listed in Rule 59(a).” Ice v. Ice, 

, 789–

90, 

 (2000); see also N.C. Alliance for Transp. Reform, Inc. v.

N.C. Dep’t of Transp., 

, 

 (2007). Rule

59(a) lists the causes or grounds for alteration or amendment of a judgment as

follows:

         (1) Any irregularity by which any party was prevented from having a
         fair trial;
         (2) Misconduct of the jury or prevailing party;
         (3) Accident or surprise which ordinary prudence could not have
         guarded against;
         (4) Newly discovered evidence material for the party making the
         motion which he could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered
         and produced at the trial;
         (5) Manifest disregard by the jury of the instructions of the court;
         (6) Excessive or inadequate damages appearing to have been given
         under the influence of passion or prejudice;
         (7) Insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict or that the verdict
         is contrary to law;
         (8) Error in law occurring at the trial and objected to by the party
         making the motion, or
         (9) Any other reason heretofore recognized as grounds for new trial.

N.C. Gen. Stat. R. 59(a). If a motion under Rule 59(e) is not based on the grounds

set forth under 59(a), the motion is improper and should be denied. Ice, 

, 

.
   27.     Here, the Receiver has not identified or otherwise suggested any grounds

for his motion under Rule 59(a), necessitating denial of the Motion to the extent it is

made under this Rule. See also N.C. Alliance, 183 N.C. App. at 469–70, 465 S.E.2d

at 108 (affirming denial of Rule 59 motion where the “basis of the motion was not

apparent from the grounds listed, leaving the trial court and the opposing party to

guess what the particular grounds might be”).

   28.     Rule 60(a) provides that “[c]lerical mistakes in judgments, orders or other

parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight or omission may be

corrected by the judge at any time on his own initiative or on the motion of any

party and after such notice, if any, as the judge orders.” “The court’s authority

under Rule 60(a) is limited to the correction of clerical errors or omissions.” Food

Serv. Specialists v. Atlas Rest. Mgmt., Inc., 

, 

 (1993) (quoting Hinson v. Hinson, 

, 

(1985)).

   29.     As discussed in the context of the Receiver’s Motion under Rule 52, the

Receiver’s requested amendments and addition are to “clarify,” “to add context,” or

“to authorize” and “direct” the Receiver to take certain action. As such, the Receiver

does not seek to correct “errors [in the Opinion] arising from oversight or omission,”

precluding relief under this Rule.

   30.     Rule 60(b) provides as follows:

         [o]n motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a
         party or his legal representative from a final judgment, order, or
         proceeding for the following reasons:
         (1) Mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
         (2) Newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have
         been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
         (3) Fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic),
         misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party;
         (4) The judgment is void;
         (5) The judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior
         judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise
         vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have
         prospective application; or
         (6) Any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the
         judgment.

N.C. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

   31.     The Receiver, however, does not seek relief from the operation or effect of

the Opinion. Again, the Receiver’s requested relief is to “clarify,” “add context,” or

“authorize” or “direct” action. As such, the Motion does not seek permissible relief

under Rule 60(b). Moreover, it appears to the Court that even if the Motion did

seek relief proper under Rule 60(b), the Receiver has not offered evidence to meet

his burden under the Rule. Highfill v. Williamson, 

, 533–34, 

 (1973).

   32.     Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the Court, in the exercise of its

discretion, denies the Motion to the extent it is brought under Rules 59 or 60.

                                            IV.

                                 RELIEF REQUESTED

   33.     Although the Court has concluded that the Receiver’s Motion should be

denied as discussed above, the Court finds it appropriate to address further the

Receiver’s requests seeking the Court’s authorization to permit the Receiver to take

certain actions.
   34.   When the Receiver was appointed as Receiver of KEPES, the Court

granted the Receiver the powers set forth in 

 and/or 57D-

6-04. (Order Approving Settlement Agreement and Appointing Receiver for KEPES

NEWCO, LLC and DRE NEWCO, LLC and Restraining Order 7, hereinafter

“Appointment Order,” ECF No. 26.) Most of the authority granted to the Receiver

in the various appointment orders entered in these proceedings does not require

specific Court approval prior to exercise. See generally First-Citizens Bank & Trust

Co. v. Berry, 

, 

 (1968) (“The receiver holds

title to the property vested in him as an officer of the court. He receives his

authority from the applicable statutes, together with the directions and instructions

of the court in its order appointing him.”). Nonetheless, the “sale, conveyance, or

transfer” of a Receivership Entities’ asset when in the “best interests of the

receivership estate” must be “approved and confirmed by this Court after notice to

all parties in interest.” (ECF No. 26 at 8–9.)

   35.   In the Opinion, the Court ordered the Receiver “to cease and desist all

collection activities to recover on the Barton Judgment.” (ECF No. 432 at 21.) It

appears, through the Receiver’s briefs on this Motion, that the Receiver now wishes

to abandon the Barton Judgment to Bessie Epes.         Such a course of action will

involve the “sale, conveyance, or transfer” of the Barton Judgment to Ms. Epes,

necessitating Court approval. As a result, the Court will enter a separate order, sua

sponte, contemporaneously with this Order and Opinion deeming the Receiver’s

Motion as a request to abandon the Barton Judgment to Ms. Epes, requiring any
interested party to file a timely objection if they oppose the Receiver’s request, and

ordering the Receiver to file a timely response to any properly made objection.

   36.   In addition, although the Receiver acknowledges that “[f]rom the

perspective of creditors, the Receiver’s time and energy would seem to be better

focused elsewhere,” (ECF No. 435 at 4–5), it appears that the Receiver seeks, in the

alternative, authorization to appeal the Opinion. A receiver appointed by the courts

needs to be “authorized by the court to appeal from its judgment” but such

authorization can be “express or implied.” C.D. Kenny Co. v. Hinton Hotel, Co., 

, 

 (1935).

   37.   Here, the Receiver has been authorized under the applicable Appointment

Order “to sue and defend in his own name as Receiver of the Receivership Entities

in all courts of this State[,]” “[t]o exercise all of the powers of the Receivership

Entities, through or in place of their managers or board of directors, to the extent

necessary to manage the affairs of the Receivership Entities in the best interests of

their members, shareholders and creditors[,]” and “to bring all actions at law or in

equity, or as the case may be, such other proceedings as may be necessary and

proper to administer and liquidate the Receivership Entities’ assets.” (ECF No. 26

at 7, 9, 12.) Although these provisions could potentially be construed as granting

the Receiver implied authority to appeal in certain circumstances, the Court did not

intend to authorize the Receiver to appeal absent Court approval. As such, the

Court agrees that the Receiver must seek express authorization from the Court to

appeal the Opinion.
    38.   As a result, in the event the Receiver wishes to appeal the Opinion, the

Receiver should move the Court for approval to initiate the appeal, and the Court

will allow interested parties an opportunity to file objections and the Receiver an

opportunity to respond.5 See generally Strauss v. Carolina Interstate Bldg. & Loan

Ass’n, 

, 563–64, 

 (1896) (“There are cases in which it is

the duty of receivers to appeal, where they think the party or corporation they

represent has not had justice. But it is not considered to be their duty to appeal in

the interest of one portion of the corporators--stockholders--against the other. And

as to their duties, it is expected they will observe the directions of the court from

whom they received their appointments.”); Battery Park Bank v. W. Carolina Bank,

, 

 (1900) (“But we fail to see why the receiver

appealed from the judgment. He is in no wise concerned, nor is the interest of the

defendant bank affected, as the indebtedness is admittedly valid.”).

    39.   Finally, the Receiver has asked the Court to order the Receiver to file a

final report concerning the EBW Judgment. Under North Carolina law, the Court

is authorized to order the Receiver to make “a report of his proceedings to [this

Court] at such times as the [C]ourt may direct during the continuance of the trust.”

. The Court is not persuaded that a final report to the

Court on the EBW Judgment is necessary at this time or would either facilitate the

efficient administration of the Receivership Entities or provide additional

information to the Court necessary for its supervision of the Receiver.


5  The Court offers no view on whether any appeal of the Opinion would be timely as this
issue is not before the Court at this time.
   40.     WHEREFORE, the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, DENIES the

Motion as set forth above.

         SO ORDERED, this the 22nd day of August, 2017.

                                     /s/ Louis A. Bledsoe, III
                                     Louis A. Bledsoe, III
                                     Special Superior Court Judge
                                       for Complex Business Cases