NC General Statutes

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-75.8 (2026)

Jurisdiction in rem or quasi in rem - Grounds for generally

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NCLEGncleg.gov (official) JustiaChapter 1 CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A court of this State having jurisdiction of the subject matter may exercise jurisdiction in rem or quasi in rem on the grounds stated in this section. A judgment in rem or quasi in rem may affect the interests of a defendant in a status, property or thing acted upon only if process has been served upon the defendant pursuant to Rule 4(k) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Jurisdiction in rem or quasi in rem may be invoked in any of the following cases:

(1) When the subject of the action is real or personal property in this State and the defendant has or claims any lien or interest therein, or the relief demanded consists wholly or partially in excluding the defendant from any interest or lien therein. This subdivision shall apply whether any such defendant is known or unknown.

(2) When the action is to foreclose, redeem from or satisfy a deed of trust, mortgage, claim or lien upon real or personal property in this State.

(3) When the action is for a divorce or for annulment of marriage of a resident of this State.

(4) When the defendant has property within this State which has been attached or has a debtor within the State who has been garnished. Jurisdiction under this subdivision may be independent of or supplementary to jurisdiction acquired under subdivisions (1), (2) and (3) of this section.

(5) In any other action in which in rem or quasi in rem jurisdiction may be constitutionally exercised. (1967, c. 954, s. 2.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 24 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: Fraser v. Littlejohn, 386 S.E.2d 230 (N.C. Ct. App. 1989).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Fraser v. Littlejohn, 386 S.E.2d 230 (N.C. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 21× “based its assertion of personal jurisdiction on N.C.G.S. § 1-75.8(4), which allowed jurisdiction when “[defendant has property within this State which has been attached or has a debtor within the State who has been garnished.”

Holt v. Holt, 255 S.E.2d 407 (N.C. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 10× “" The opening sentence of G.S. 1-75.8 is as follows: "A court of this State having jurisdiction of the subject matter may exercise jurisdiction in rem or quasi in rem on the grounds stated in this section.”

Balcon, Inc. v. Sadler, 244 S.E.2d 164 (N.C. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 4× “” The opening sentence of G.S. 1-75.8 is as follows: “A court of this State having jurisdiction of the subject matter may exercise jurisdiction in rem or quasi in rem on the grounds stated in this section.”

Gro-Mar Pub. Relations, Inc. v. Billy Jack Enter., Inc., 245 S.E.2d 782 (N.C. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 3× “Plaintiff sought to attach certain debts allegedly owed to defendant by three North Carolina theatres and contends that the trial court obtained quasi in rem jurisdiction pursuant to G.S. 1-75.8, which provides in pertinent part: “.”

Chamberlin v. Chamberlin, 319 S.E.2d 670 (N.C. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 8× “G.S. 1-75.8 states, in pertinent part: “A court of this State having jurisdiction over the subject matter may exercise jurisdiction in rem .”

Watauga Cty. v. Beal, 806 S.E.2d 338 (N.C. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 5× “Rule 4(j1) and Rule 4(k) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-75.8 collectively provide, in relevant part, that if, after due diligence, a plaintiff in a foreclosure action cannot serve the defendant by personal delivery, registered or certified…”

Canterbury v. Monroe Lange Hardwood Imports Div. of MacRose Indus. Corp., 268 S.E.2d 868 (N.C. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 5× “But, assuming the attachment proceeding was in order so as to give the courts of this State subject matter jurisdiction, the “long-arm” statute, G.S. § 1-75.8, furnishes statutory grounds for the exercise of jurisdiction.”

Credit Union Auto Buying Serv., Inc. v. Burkshire Props. Grp. Corp., 776 S.E.2d 737 (N.C. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 6× “The trial court in the instant case exercised quasi in rem jurisdiction over the controversy pursuant to N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1-75.8. This statute provides that quasi in rem jurisdiction may be invoked "[w]hen the subject of the action is real or personal property in this State and…”

Georgia R.R. Bank & Trust Co. v. Eways, 265 S.E.2d 637 (N.C. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “Similarly, the effect of G.S. 1-75.8(5) is to permit the exercise of quasi in rem jurisdiction over the property interest of a defendant who has been served with process pursuant to Rule 4(k) of the Rules of Civil Procedure in any action where constitutionally permitted.”

Cole v. Hughes, 442 S.E.2d 86 (N.C. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 3× “In North Carolina, a court is authorized to exercise in rem jurisdiction “[w]hen the subject matter of the action is real or personal property in this State and the defendant has or claims any lien or interest therein, or the relief demanded consists wholly or partially in…”

Harris & Gurganus, Inc. v. Williams, 246 S.E.2d 791 (N.C. Ct. App. 1978). “As noted by defendant, grounds for jurisdiction in rem existed pursuant to G.S. 1-75.8. The judgment of the district court denying to plaintiff the relief sought and declaring defendant the lawful owner of the property in question free from the claims of plaintiff is reversed.”

Ellison v. Ellison, 776 S.E.2d 522 (N.C. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 3× “N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1-75.8 (2013) (emphasis added).”

Show all 24 citing cases →

— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-75.8(1) — 4 cases

Cole v. Hughes, 442 S.E.2d 86 (N.C. Ct. App. 1994). “In North Carolina, a court is authorized to exercise in rem jurisdiction “[w]hen the subject matter of the action is real or personal property in this State and the defendant has or claims any lien or interest therein, or the relief demanded consists wholly or partially in…”

Credit Union Auto Buying Serv., Inc. v. Burkshire Props. Grp. Corp., 776 S.E.2d 737 (N.C. Ct. App. 2015). “The trial court in the instant case exercised quasi in rem jurisdiction over the controversy pursuant to N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1-75.8. This statute provides that quasi in rem jurisdiction may be invoked "[w]hen the subject of the action is real or personal property in this State and…”

Ellison v. Ellison, 776 S.E.2d 522 (N.C. Ct. App. 2015). “N.C. Gen.Stat. § 1-75.8 (2013) (emphasis added).”

Lessard v. Lessard, 316 S.E.2d 96 (N.C. Ct. App. 1984).

— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-75.8(3) — 1 case

Chamberlin v. Chamberlin, 319 S.E.2d 670 (N.C. Ct. App. 1984). “G.S. 1-75.8 states, in pertinent part: “A court of this State having jurisdiction over the subject matter may exercise jurisdiction in rem .”

— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-75.8(4) — 6 cases

Fraser v. Littlejohn, 386 S.E.2d 230 (N.C. Ct. App. 1989). “based its assertion of personal jurisdiction on N.C.G.S. § 1-75.8(4), which allowed jurisdiction when “[defendant has property within this State which has been attached or has a debtor within the State who has been garnished.”

Holt v. Holt, 255 S.E.2d 407 (N.C. Ct. App. 1979). “" The opening sentence of G.S. 1-75.8 is as follows: "A court of this State having jurisdiction of the subject matter may exercise jurisdiction in rem or quasi in rem on the grounds stated in this section.”

Balcon, Inc. v. Sadler, 244 S.E.2d 164 (N.C. Ct. App. 1978). “” The opening sentence of G.S. 1-75.8 is as follows: “A court of this State having jurisdiction of the subject matter may exercise jurisdiction in rem or quasi in rem on the grounds stated in this section.”

Hutchison v. Bank of North Carolina, 392 F. Supp. 888 (M.D.N.C. 1975).

Gro-Mar Pub. Relations, Inc. v. Billy Jack Enter., Inc., 245 S.E.2d 782 (N.C. Ct. App. 1978). “Plaintiff sought to attach certain debts allegedly owed to defendant by three North Carolina theatres and contends that the trial court obtained quasi in rem jurisdiction pursuant to G.S. 1-75.8, which provides in pertinent part: “.”

— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-75.8(5) — 5 cases

Georgia R.R. Bank & Trust Co. v. Eways, 265 S.E.2d 637 (N.C. Ct. App. 1980). “Similarly, the effect of G.S. 1-75.8(5) is to permit the exercise of quasi in rem jurisdiction over the property interest of a defendant who has been served with process pursuant to Rule 4(k) of the Rules of Civil Procedure in any action where constitutionally permitted.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.