No. 84-153 111THE SUPREbE COURT OF THE STATE OF FIONTANA 1985

RICHARD C. LUSSY, Plaintiff and Appellant,

H. V. DYE and the Law Firm of fiIILODRAGOVICH, DALE & DYE, P.C. 

### , Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL FROPI: District Court of the Third Judicial District, Inand for the County of Deer Lodge, TheHonorableMark Sullivan,Judgepresiding.
COUNSELOF RECORD:
ForAppellant: Richard C. Lussy,pro se, Seattle, Washington

For Respondents: Worden,Thane & Haines,Missoula,Montana

Submitted on Briefs: Jan. 10, 1985 Decided: February 15, 1985

ClerkMr. Justice William E. Hunt, Sr.

## , delivered the Opinion of the Court.

The respondents were counsel for the appellant in a debt action brought by First Security Eank of Deer Lodge. The bank obtained a favorable judgment 

### or, December 1, 1.978, in Powel-ICounty and a judgment was filed in both Powell County and Deer Lodge County. The bank proceeded toward having the appellant's property sold at a sheriff's sale, however, the appellant satisfied the judgmentprior to the sale. A notice of satisfaction of judgment was filed in Powell County on March 3, 1979,but no notice was filed in Deer Lodge County. On September 17, 1982 the appellant brought an action against the attorneys that had represented the bank in the debt action. The complaint in this action was subsequently amended to include the respondents, appellant's own attorneys in the debt action, as defendants on January 28, 1983. The appellant alleged that due to the respondents' and others' failure to file notice of satisfaction of judgment in Deer Lodge County,aswas done in Powell County, the appellantwas injured when a land sale failed due to the improper "cloud"
on the title. The respondents filed a motion to dismiss on Fehruary 28, 1983. The motion was based on the contention that the applicable statute of limitation barred the appellant's action. Themotionwas briefed by both parties and a heari.ng
was held. On September 20, 1983 the District Court granted respondents

### ' motion and ordered the appellant's compl-aint dismissed as to respondents. On January 10, 1984, the appellant moved for relief from the order dismissing the complaint against 

### the respondents. Thismotion was based onthe contention that relief should be qranted because the applicable statute of limjtationsdid notbar the appellant's action against the respondents. Themotion was briefed and a hearing was held. On February 24, 1984, the District Court denied the appellant'smotion. This appeal followed. We affirm. This appeal concerns the application of Rule 60(b)(6) M.R.Civ.P. The issues on appeal are: 1.) whether the appellant had "arry other re?-sonjustifying relief from the operation of the judgment" so that Rule 60(b)(6) could be applied; and 2.) whether the appellant brought the Rule 6O(b)(6) motion within the required reasonable time. The appellant contends that Rule 60(h)(6) applies because the District Court allegedly erred in ruling that the original complaint against the respondentswas barred by the statute of limitations. Tn other words, the appellant attempted to apply Rule 60(b)(6)because the order from which reliefwas soughtwas allegedlyerroneous. Theproper avenue for seeking redress from an allegedly erroneous decision, solely on the basis that it is erroneous, is the appeal process. It is not the intent of Rule 60(b)(6)to be a substitute for appeal. The substance of amotion for relief under Rule 60(b)(6)must be something more than a request for rehearing
or a request that the District Court change its mind. It must be shown that somethingprevented a full presentation of the causeor an accurate determination on themerits and that for reasons of fairness and equity redress is justified. It is important for the sake of the 1-itigantsand for the judicial system that litigation will at some time be finally ended. When the time for appeal has elapsed and nogrounds justify other relief the case is final as to all matters properly appealable. We find that the appel-lant's request for relief was grounded so1.el.y on thebasis thatthe District Court order dismissing the respondents was erroneous, that such was properly appea-lable, and that the appellant has set forth no grounds that would justify the application of Rule 60(b) (6)

## , M.R.Civ.P. We therefore hold that the District Court acted properly in denying the appellant's motion. The resolution of thisissuerenders a discussion on the issue of reasonable time unnecessary. The order of the District Court shall stand. Affirmed.

We Concur: /

Chief Justice 

# f