Key Issue:

• Whether the motion judge correctly granted a nunc pro tunc order (retroactive order) where a counterclaim was served but not issued before the limitation period expired.

Background:

• Riordan Leasing leased five vehicles to Norman Towing in 2017.
• Vehicles were seized in August 2020 due to lease defaults and sold by September 2020.
• Norman Towing filed a claim for damages in February 2021.
• Riordan Leasing counterclaimed, adding Narman Abri as a party; the counterclaim was served in June 2021 but not issued.
• Default judgment was granted in January 2022.
• Abri's counsel moved to set aside the judgment in May 2022, citing non-issuance of the counterclaim.

Motion Judge's Decision:

• Default judgment set aside.
• Nunc pro tunc order granted, deeming the counterclaim issued as of June 18, 2021.

Appeal Court Decision:

• Appeal dismissed.
• The procedural error was deemed an administrative misstep, not a substantive one.
• The court held the respondent's actions fulfilled the purposes of limitation periods (certainty, evidentiary integrity, diligence).
• Granting the nunc pro tunc order was appropriate to prevent unjust outcomes.

Outcome:

• Appeal dismissed.
• Costs of $2,500 awarded to the respondent.