Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03204/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03204-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

FEDERAL LAND BANK OF WICHITA, ) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

FI LED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tench Circui: 

FEB 2 0 1990 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

MARCIA OCHS, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 89-3204 

(D.C. No. 87-4113-R) 

(D. Kan.) 

Defendant-Appellant, 

DARREL OCHS, also known as 

Darrel D. Ochs, 

Defendant-Third-partyplaintiff-Appellant, 

and 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

acting through the Farmers 

Home Administration, Department of Agriculture; and 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND 

TAXATION, INTERNAL REVENUE 

SERVICE, 

Defendants, 

v. 

FEDERAL LAND BANK ASSOCIATION 

OF LARNED, KANSAS, 

Third-party-defendant. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-3204 Document: 01019964415 Date Filed: 02/20/1990 Page: 1 
assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Darrel Ochs appeals from the order of the district court 

refusing to reopen a default judgment. Ochs contends the district 

court abused its discretion in refusing to reopen and further 

erred in determining that there is no private right of action 

under the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987. We do not reach the 

second question because we hold the district court did not err in 

refusing to reopen the default judgment. 

''The decision of whether relief should be granted under Rule 

60(b)(6) is discretionary and the ruling should not be disturbed 

except for a manifest abuse of discretion." Security Mutual 

Casualty Co.~ Century Casualty Co., 621 F.2d 1062, 1068 (10th 

Cir. 1980). Where relief is requested under Rule 60(b), "the 

appellant must show the existence of unusual circumstances that 

justify the extraordinary relief requested." United States v. 

31.63 Acres of Land, 840 F.2d 760, 761 (10th Cir. 1988). 

Moreover, we will look to prejudice and delay. See Security 

Mutual, 621 F.2d at 1068. 

We determine that Ochs has presented no "unusual 

circumstances" that would justify relief under Rule 60(b)(6). 

Ochs has presented no colorable showing of excusable delay in 

bringing his contentions to the attention of the court. In the 

absence of such a showing, we cannot say the district court abused 

its discretion. 

The motion to supplement the record is DENIED. The order of 

the district court is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue 

forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-3204 Document: 01019964415 Date Filed: 02/20/1990 Page: 2