Void Judgments and “Reasonable Time”

*Professor, Brooklyn Law School. My thanks to Samuel Bray for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this essay.Show More

Introduction

Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes federal district courts, “[o]n motion and just terms,” to “relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for” certain specified reasons.¹ 1.Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).Show More Rule 60(b)(4) specifically allows parties to seek such relief where “the judgment is void.”² 2.Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4).Show More Rule 60(c)(1) establishes a time limit for Rule 60(b) motions, demanding that certain requests for relief—including requests based on a party’s inadvertence or mistake, newly discovered evidence, or allegations of fraud—must be brought “no more than a year after the entry of the judgment” from which relief is sought.³ 3.Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)–(3).Show More All other motions under the Rule must be made “within a reasonable time.”⁴ 4.Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1).Show More

Notwithstanding the Rule’s seemingly straightforward language, multiple federal courts of appeals have concluded that Rule 60(c)(1)’s “reasonable time” requirement does not apply where a party seeks relief from the consequences of an assertedly void judgment.⁵ 5.See Petition for a Writ of Certiorari at 8–11, Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton, 145 S. Ct. 2775 (2025) (No. 24-808) (mem.) (observing that, “[a]part from the Sixth Circuit, every Court of Appeals to have addressed the issue has concluded that no . . . time limitation exists” for a motion under Rule 60(b)(4) and citing decisions from the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Circuits as well as the D.C. Circuit).Show More The refusal to apply the reasonable time limitation to motions under Rule 60(b)(4) is premised on the idea that “no passage of time can transmute a nullity into a binding judgment, and hence there is no time limit for such a motion.”⁶ 6.United States v. One Toshiba Color Television, 213 F.3d 147, 157 (3d Cir. 2000) (en banc); see also, e.g., United States v. Boch Oldsmobile, Inc., 909 F.2d 657, 661 (1st Cir. 1990) (“Even if appellants’ motion was not made within the prescribed period, if the judgment was void, relief must be granted nevertheless.”); Austin v. Smith, 312 F.2d 337, 343 (D.C. Cir. 1962) (“Under [Rule 60(b)(4)] . . . , the only question for the court is whether the judgment is void; if it is, relief from it should be granted. . . . [T]he Rule places no time limit on an attack upon a void judgment . . . .”).Show More This view also finds support among leading academic commentators on federal jurisdiction and procedure.⁷ 7.11 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2862, at 431 (3d ed. 2012) (“[T]here is no time limit on an attack on a judgment as void.”) [hereinafter Wright, Miller & Kane].Show More

But not everyone is convinced. Some courts, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, have adopted a literal interpretation of the Rule that would require all motions under Rule 60(b)—including those authorized by Rule 60(b)(4)—to be made within a “reasonable time.”⁸ 8.In re Vista-Pro Auto., LLC, 109 F.4th 438, 444 (6th Cir. 2024), cert. granted sub nom. Coney Island, 145 S. Ct. 2775; see also, e.g., Lee v. Marvel Enters., Inc., 765 F. Supp. 2d 440, 449 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (“[A] claim for Rule 60(b)(4) relief must have been brought within a ‘reasonable time.’”), aff’d, 471 F. App’x 14 (2d Cir. 2012).Show More The U.S. Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton,⁹ 9.Coney Island, 145 S. Ct. 2775.Show More which presents the question of “[w]hether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1) imposes any time limit to set aside a void default judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction.”¹⁰ 10.Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, supra note 5, at i.Show More This case seems to confront the Court with a direct conflict between the literal text of Rule 60 and deep intuitions regarding the relationship between jurisdiction and judgment validity.

This Essay suggests a way in which the Court could answer that question that makes sense of both the Rule’s text and background history, and the traditional conception that void judgments are nullities carrying no legal effect. This interpretation draws upon the traditional common law distinction between judgments that were void on the face of the record and judgments for which the rendering court’s lack of jurisdiction could only be established through extrinsic evidence. Though judgments of the former type were generally regarded as absolute nullities that could be challenged at any time, challenges that hinged on extrinsic evidence often faced additional obstacles, including a potential laches defense if the moving party unreasonably delayed in seeking relief. Interpreting Rule 60(c)(1) in light of this distinction would make sense of the text’s extension of the “reasonable time” requirement to motions for relief from void judgments without imputing to the enactors an intention to depart from deeply rooted background principles regarding the relationship between adjudicative jurisdiction and the validity and finality of legal judgments. This interpretation also comports with the overarching policy goals of Rule 60(b) and of the Federal Rules more broadly.

1.  Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). ↑
2.  Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4). ↑
3.  Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)–(3). ↑
4.  Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). ↑
5.  See Petition for a Writ of Certiorari at 8–11, Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton, 145 S. Ct. 2775 (2025) (No. 24-808) (mem.) (observing that, “[a]part from the Sixth Circuit, every Court of Appeals to have addressed the issue has concluded that no . . . time limitation exists” for a motion under Rule 60(b)(4) and citing decisions from the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Circuits as well as the D.C. Circuit). ↑
6.  United States v. One Toshiba Color Television, 213 F.3d 147, 157 (3d Cir. 2000) (en banc); see also, e.g., United States v. Boch Oldsmobile, Inc., 909 F.2d 657, 661 (1st Cir. 1990) (“Even if appellants’ motion was not made within the prescribed period, if the judgment was void, relief must be granted nevertheless.”); Austin v. Smith, 312 F.2d 337, 343 (D.C. Cir. 1962) (“Under [Rule 60(b)(4)] . . . , the only question for the court is whether the judgment is void; if it is, relief from it should be granted. . . . [T]he Rule places no time limit on an attack upon a void judgment . . . .”). ↑
7.  11 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2862, at 431 (3d ed. 2012) (“[T]here is no time limit on an attack on a judgment as void.”) [hereinafter Wright, Miller & Kane]. ↑
8.  In re Vista-Pro Auto., LLC, 109 F.4th 438, 444 (6th Cir. 2024), cert. granted sub nom. Coney Island, 145 S. Ct. 2775; see also, e.g., Lee v. Marvel Enters., Inc., 765 F. Supp. 2d 440, 449 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (“[A] claim for Rule 60(b)(4) relief must have been brought within a ‘reasonable time.’”), aff’d, 471 F. App’x 14 (2d Cir. 2012). ↑
9.  Coney Island, 145 S. Ct. 2775. ↑
10.  Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, supra note 5, at i. ↑