The North Carolina Court of Appeals recently ruled on a case involving Arthur and Lisa Perry against CitiMortgage, Inc. The court upheld a lower court's decision to deny the plaintiffs' request to set aside a voluntary dismissal of their claims. This ruling affects the Perrys, who alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, as they cannot pursue their case against the mortgage company.
The case, Perry v. CitiMortgage, Inc., was filed under docket number 25-938. The Perrys claimed that a fraudulent deed of trust recorded against their property in 2006 hindered their ability to sell the home in 2019. The court's decision is significant as it highlights the challenges individuals face in legal disputes with large corporations.
Background
Arthur and Lisa Perry filed their complaint against CitiMortgage and its CEO, David Smith, on October 20, 2022. They alleged multiple violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act due to a deed of trust that they claimed was fraudulent and recorded without their knowledge. The Perrys only discovered the deed of trust when they attempted to sell their property in February 2019. Their efforts to resolve the issue with CitiMortgage were unsuccessful, leading them to file a lawsuit.
The case progressed through the court system, and on June 2, 2023, it was ordered to mediation. However, the parties reached an impasse during this process. In October 2023, the Perrys' attorney, Ann-Charlotte Dowless, withdrew from the case, which created complications for the plaintiffs. They eventually hired a new attorney, Jonathan Salmons, who sought to dismiss the case voluntarily.
On December 4, 2023, Salmons filed a notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice, which meant the Perrys could not refile the case. This dismissal occurred without the Perrys' explicit consent, as they believed they were dismissing the case without prejudice, allowing them to refile later. The Perrys sought relief from this judgment in January 2025, arguing that their former attorney had acted without their consent.
The Ruling
The Court of Appeals, led by Judge April Wood, ruled on September 2, 2026, affirming the lower court's decision to deny the Perrys' motion for relief from judgment. The court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. Judge Wood stated, "Any negligence was not excusable negligence. There’s no extraordinary circumstance that exists to warrant a Rule 60 relief."
The court's ruling emphasized that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that their former attorney's actions constituted extraordinary circumstances. The court also noted that the defendants would face prejudice if the ruling were overturned. The judges Zachary and Gore concurred with the decision.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for the Perrys and others in similar situations. By denying the motion for relief, the court effectively upheld the finality of the voluntary dismissal. This means the Perrys cannot pursue their claims against CitiMortgage, which raises concerns about individuals' ability to challenge large corporations in court.
The decision also underscores the importance of clear communication between clients and their legal representatives. It highlights the potential consequences of a lack of consent in legal proceedings, especially when dealing with complex financial matters. The ruling may serve as a cautionary tale for individuals navigating similar legal disputes.
What's Next
The Perrys have the option to appeal the decision to a higher court, but details were not available in the court filing regarding any pending appeals or related cases. As it stands, the ruling effectively closes the door on their claims against CitiMortgage.