FRCP/Post-Trial Motions

Rule 60: Relief from a Judgment or Order

Quick Answer

What is Relief from a Judgment or Order?

Rule 60 is the last resort for a party seeking to undo a final judgment. It provides a safety valve for extraordinary circumstances where leaving the judgment in place would be manifestly unjust.

Source: Fed. R. Civ. P. 60

Plain English Explanation

Rule 60 is the last resort for a party seeking to undo a final judgment. It provides a safety valve for extraordinary circumstances where leaving the judgment in place would be manifestly unjust.

Rule 60(a) handles the easy cases: clerical errors — typos, mathematical mistakes, oversights in transcription — can be corrected at any time. Rule 60(b) is the heavy-duty provision, listing six grounds for relief. The first three grounds — mistake/excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, and fraud by the other party — have a strict one-year deadline. Grounds four and five — void judgments and satisfied/reversed judgments — must be raised within a 'reasonable time.' The sixth ground, the catchall provision 60(b)(6), is reserved for extraordinary circumstances not covered by the other grounds, and courts construe it narrowly.

The bar for Rule 60(b) relief is intentionally high because of the strong interest in finality of judgments. A Rule 60(b) motion is not a substitute for a timely appeal, and it cannot be used to relitigate issues already decided. Rule 60(d) separately preserves the court's inherent power to set aside a judgment for fraud on the court — a doctrine with an even higher standard but no time limit.

Key Points

  1. 160(a): clerical errors corrected at any time
  2. 260(b)(1)–(3): mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud — must be filed within one year
  3. 360(b)(4)–(6): void judgment, satisfaction/reversal, catchall — must be filed within a reasonable time
  4. 460(b)(6) is a narrow catchall for extraordinary circumstances
  5. 5Rule 60(d) preserves the court's inherent power to address fraud on the court (no time limit)

Common Exam Issues

  • The one-year time limit for Rule 60(b)(1)–(3) vs. reasonable time for (4)–(6)
  • What constitutes excusable neglect under Rule 60(b)(1) — the Pioneer factors
  • Whether a judgment is void under Rule 60(b)(4) — typically for jurisdictional defects
  • The narrow scope of the Rule 60(b)(6) catchall and its extraordinary circumstances requirement

Important Cases

Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates, 507 U.S. 380 (1993)

Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005)

Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193 (1950)

Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944)

Related Rules

Master Civil Procedure with AI-Powered Study Tools

20+ tools to help you study smarter. 3-day free trial, then $9.99/month.

Start Free Trial