Boyd v. Marsh
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
ARNOLD, Judge.
It is well-established that a party served with a summons must give the matter the attention which a person of ordinary prudence gives to his important business, and failure to do so is not excusable neglect under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 60(b)(1). See Ellison v. White, 3 N.C. App. 235, 164 S.E. 2d 511 (1968); Meir v. Walton, 2 N.C. App. 578, 163 S.E. 2d 403 (1968) and cases cited therein. In the instant case the facts do not support the court’s conclusion that defendant’s failure to answer was excusable. Defendant has a ninth grade education and can read and write. He previously has…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Meir v. WaltonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1968
- Ellison v. WhiteCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1968
3Cited by8 opinions
- Moore v. City of RaleighCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1999
- Grant v. CoxCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1992
- In Re LaughinghouseUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. North Carolina · 1984
- In re Uiterwyk Corp.United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · 1986
- Coleman v. ColemanCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.