Case of the Day: Savage v. Zelent

The case of the day is Savage v. Zelent (N.C. Ct. App. 2015). Alan Savage and Julie Anne Zelent lived together as a couple in Scotland. They eventually separated, and Zelent moved to North Carolina. She sued Savage in the Inverness Sheriff’s Court under the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006, claiming that she was entitled to support from him. After a trial, the Sheriff found that Zelent was not entitled to contribution. Zelent did not appeal. Zelent’s counsel withdrew from the representation, which under the governing procedure meant that a peremptory diet—a kind of hearing— had to be held. The hearing was held, but Zelent did not appear despite receiving notice. In her absence, as permitted by Scots law, the Sheriff awarded Savage his expenses in an amount to be later determined by the Auditor. The Auditor held a diet of taxation, a hearing for the purpose of determining the amount of expenses. Again, Zelent did not attend. The Auditor found expenses in the amount of £148,516.75, and the Sheriff approved the report and awarded the expenses. Zelent did not appeal, but she also did not pay.

Savage sought recognition and enforcement of the judgment in North Carolina. The trial court recognized the judgment, and Zelent appealed.
Continue reading Case of the Day: Savage v. Zelent

Case of the Day: Soft Line S.p.A. v. Italian Homes, LLC

The case of the day is Soft Lines S.p.A. v. Italian Homes, LLC (N.C. Super. Ct. 2015). Soft Line Sued Angelo Calculli, an Italian national, and Italian Homes, LLC, a North Carolina limited liability company, among others. Mr. Calculli was manager of Italian Homes. Like FRCP 4(f)(3), the North Carolina rules of civil procedure permit service by alternate means on motion. Soft Lines sought leave to serve Calculli by service on Italian Homes.
Continue reading Case of the Day: Soft Line S.p.A. v. Italian Homes, LLC

Digest for March 2, 2011

Hammond v. Hammond (N.C. Ct. App. 2011). Affirming denial of motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process where the plaintiff effected service in Japan via the Japanese central authority and where a certificate from the authority indicated that service had been effected.