Rule 60. Relief from a Judgment or Order
(a) Corrections Based on Clerical Mistakes; Oversights and Omissions. The court may correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record. The court may do so on motion or on its own, with or without notice. But after an appeal has been docketed in the appellate court and while it is pending, such a mistake may be corrected only with the appellate court’s leave.
(b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
(1) Timing. A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time—and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.
(2) Effect on Finality. The motion does not affect the judgment’s finality or suspend its operation.
(1) entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, order, or proceeding;
(2) grant relief under 28 U.S.C. §1655 to a defendant who was not personally notified of the action; or
(3) set aside a judgment for fraud on the court.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4)
A judgment is void under Rule 60(b)(4) if the court that rendered the decision lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter or parties. A lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, however, will not always render a final judgment void under Rule 60(b)(4). A party seeking to void the judgment must demonstrate more than the court erred in asserting subject-matter jurisdiction over the claim. Rather, the party must establish the court’s exercise of jurisdiction over the claim amounted to a “plain usurpation of judicial power.” Only when the jurisdictional error is “egregious” will a court treat the judgment as void. A judgment may also be void under Rule 60(b)(4) if it is entered in a manner inconsistent with due process. Specifically, inadequate notice or failure to provide notice or service of process may result in a lack of due process rendering a judgment void.
A motion under Rule 60(b)(4) must be made “within a reasonable time.” However, courts have held that a motion to vacate a judgment as void may be brought at any time, regardless of the statute of limitations and other deadlines. In addition, a court, on its own motion, may set aside a judgment as void provided notice is given of the contemplated action and an opportunity to be heard.