In In re A.B.D., 173 N.C. App. 77, 87-88, 617 S.E.2d 707, 714 (2005), the Court held that when the petitioner failed to serve the respondent with a summons within the time permitted for service and failed to obtain an endorsement, an alias and pluries summons, or an extension of the time to serve the summons based on excusable neglect, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter an order terminating the respondent's parental rights. A.B.D. would suggest that this Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. In In re A.B.D., 173 N.C. App. 77, 83, 617 S.E.2d 707, 711 (2005), the respondent argued that the trial court erred and abused its discretion in refusing to set aside a 1999 termination of parental rights order because process was served after forty-one days had passed, the court lacked jurisdiction, and the order was thus void. In re A.B.D., 173 N.C. App. at 80, 617 S.E.2d at 710. The Court agreed, holding that because the summons was served more than thirty days after its issuance, and because Respondent made no general appearance in the action, the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over Respondent. And because no endorsement, extension, or alias/pluries summons was obtained within ninety days of the summons' issuance, the termination action, for all intents and purposes, was not filed after ninety days past the summons' 23 July 1999 issuance. The trial court therefore had no subject matter jurisdiction to enter the termination order. Because the trial court lacked both personal and subject matter jurisdiction at the time it entered the termination order, the order is clearly void, and the trial court abused its discretion in denying Respondent's motion to set aside the termination order as void pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 60(b)(4). Id. at 87-88, 617 S.E.2d at 714.