NRCP

NRCP 60 – RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT OR ORDER

RULE 60. RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT OR ORDER

  • (a) Clerical Mistakes. Clerical mistakes in judgments, orders or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any time of its own initiative or on the motion of any party and after such notice, if any, as the court orders. During the pendency of an appeal, such mistakes may be so corrected before the appeal is docketed in the appellate court, and thereafter while the appeal is pending may be so corrected with leave of the appellate court.

    (b) Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable Neglect; Newly Discovered Evidence; Fraud, Etc. On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party’s legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; or, (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that an injunction should have prospective application. The motion shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) not more than 6 months after the proceeding was taken or the date that written notice of entry of the judgment or order was served. A motion under this subdivision (b) does not affect the finality of a judgment or suspend its operation. This rule does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, order, or proceeding, or to set aside a judgment for fraud upon the court. Writs of coram nobis, coram vobis, audita querela, and bills of review and bills in the nature of a bill of review, are abolished, and the procedure for obtaining any relief from a judgment shall be by motion as prescribed in these rules or by an independent action.
    [As amended; effective January 1, 2005.]

    (c) Default Judgments: Defendant Not Personally Served. When a default judgment shall have been taken against any party who was not personally served with summons and complaint, either in the State of Nevada or in any other jurisdiction, and who has not entered a general appearance in the action, the court, after notice to the adverse party, upon motion made within 6 months after the date of service of written notice of entry of such judgment, may vacate such judgment and allow the party or the party’s legal representatives to answer to the merits of the original action. When, however, a party has been personally served with summons and complaint, either in the State of Nevada or in any other jurisdiction, the party must make application to be relieved from a default, a judgment, an order, or other proceeding taken against the party, or for permission to file an answer, in accordance with the provisions of subdivision (b) of this rule.
    [As amended; effective January 1, 2005.]

    (d) Default Judgments: Modification Nunc Pro Tunc. Whenever a default judgment or decree has been entered, the party or parties in default therein may at any time thereafter, upon written consent of the party or parties in whose favor judgment or decree has been entered, enter general appearance in the action, and the general appearance so entered shall have the same force and effect as if entered at the proper time prior to the rendition of the judgment or decree. On such appearance being entered the court may make and enter a modified judgment or decree to the extent only of showing such general appearance on the part of the party or parties in default, and it shall be entered nunc pro tunc as of the date of the original judgment or decree; provided, however, that nothing herein contained shall prevent the court from modifying such judgment or decree as stipulated and agreed in writing by the parties to such action, and in accordance with the terms of such written stipulation and agreement.

  • Drafter’s Note

    2004 Amendment

    Subdivision (b) is amended to incorporate the 1946 amendment to the federal rule, which added newly discovered evidence as a ground for relief under subdivision (b). The revised rule does not include the provision in the federal rule for relief under subdivision (b) based on “any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” Subdivision (b) is also amended by deleting the reference to fraud that “would have theretofore justified a court in sustaining a collateral attack upon the judgment”—language that does not appear in the current federal rule. Subdivision (b) is further amended by adding language, consistent with the federal rule, that abolishes “[w]rits of coram nobis, coram vobis, audita querela, and bills of review and bills in the nature of a bill of review.” Finally, subdivision (b) retains the 6-month limit on motions based on the first three grounds stated in the revised rule rather than the 1-year limit provided by the federal rule. But the provision is revised so that the 6-month limit starts to run from service of written notice of entry of the judgment or order.

    Subdivisions (c) and (d), which do not appear in the federal rule, are retained. The revisions to subdivision (c) are technical with the exception that the 6-month limit now starts to run from service of notice of entry of the judgment rather than “the date of rendition” of the judgment under the former rule.