Also known as: FRCP 60 · Rule 60 · Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 · Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60 · FRCP 60(b) · Rule 60(b) · relief from judgment
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A procedural rule authorizing a district court to relieve a party from a final judgment or order on specified grounds such as mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, fraud, or voidness of the judgment.
Felix Franco failed to appear after receiving notice of Prairie Seeds' collection suit. The court entered a default judgment against him. Within two weeks Franco retained counsel and moved to vacate, showing he had reasonably misread the rescheduling notice. The court granted relief under the rule because the nonappearance constituted excusable neglect raised promptly.
After final judgment in a securities case, Congress enacted a statute purporting to reopen the matter for certain plaintiffs. The prevailing defendant moved to dismiss the revived claims. The court held that the statute could not alter the final judgment because the rule supplies the exclusive mechanism for post-judgment relief.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A consent decree barred on-site remedial services in public schools. Later Supreme Court decisions altered the governing Establishment Clause analysis. The school board moved under the rule to modify the decree. The court granted relief because the prospective injunction was no longer equitable under intervening precedent.
Nonparties to a prior employment decree discovered that the decree had been obtained through collusion between the original litigants. They sought to challenge its binding effect in a subsequent action. The court permitted the attack because the rule allows strangers to show fraud or collusion that produced the judgment.
After losing a federal antitrust suit, a retailer filed a second action in state court raising the same claims. The defendant moved to dismiss on preclusion grounds. The court held that the earlier final judgment barred the new suit because the rule does not authorize relitigation of issues already decided.
A tenant sued her landlord for housing discrimination and demanded a jury. The district court struck the demand. On appeal the tenant argued that the rule preserved the right to jury trial on damages claims. The court of appeals agreed and remanded for a jury trial.
A motion must be made within a reasonable time. For grounds of mistake, newly discovered evidence, or fraud the motion must be filed no later than one year after entry of the judgment.
Supporting sources
A judgment is void only for fundamental defects such as lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or denial of due process through failure to provide notice. Ordinary legal errors do not render a judgment void.
Supporting sources
Yes. A court may set aside a default judgment when the party's failure to appear resulted from excusable neglect, provided the motion is made promptly and the party asserts a meritorious defense.
Supporting sources
No. Once an appeal has been docketed, a clerical mistake in the judgment may be corrected only with leave of the appellate court.
Supporting sources
…U. S. 1, and Witters v. Washington Dept. of Servs. for Blind , 474 U. S. 481, the board sought relief from the decrees under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5), which provides that a court may relieve a party from a final judgment if “the judgment . . . has been satisfied, or . . . it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have…