Opinion ID: 2279551
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Relief from Judgment Pursuant to M.R.Civ.P. 60(b)

Text: [¶ 11] In pursuing a Rule 60(b) [2] motion, the moving party must state with particularity the grounds on which he seeks relief and the statute or rule invoked ... in order that the presiding judge and adverse party may be adequately apprised of the facts and the pertinent provisions of law on which the claim for relief is based. Merrill v. Merrill, 449 A.2d 1120, 1125 (Me.1982). We review the denial of a motion for relief from a judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) for an abuse of discretion. McKinley v. McKinley, 651 A.2d 821, 823 (Me.1994). [¶ 12] Although Carolyn sought relief pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6), the court held that Carolyn's claim for relief fell squarely within the provisions of Rule 60(b)(3), which covers fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party. A claim pursuant to Rule 60(b)(3) must be made not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken. Rule 60(b)(6) claims shall be made within a reasonable time. Id. Rules 60(b)(3) and 60(b)(6) are distinct in their purview: Relief from judgment may be granted under subsection 3 for fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct of the adverse party, and under subsection 6 for any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. Merrill v. Merrill, 449 A.2d 1120, 1125 (Me.1982). [¶ 13] Carolyn's complaint clearly alleged fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by James. The trial court's determination that Carolyn's complaint fell within Rule 60(b)(3) rather than Rule 60(b)(6) was within the discretion of the court. We have stated previously that the catch-all clause of 60(b)(6) must be applied in the exercise of sound judicial discretion. Meiners v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 663 A.2d 6, 8 (Me. 1995) (citing Reville v. Reville, 370 A.2d 249, 253 (Me.1977)). Carolyn's divorce judgment became final in 1989. She did not file her motion pursuant to Rule 60(b) until 1992. Her 60(b)(3) claims were untimely. [¶ 14] The remainder of Carolyn's contentions were properly dismissed by the court because they failed to state a cognizable claim for relief pursuant to Rule 60(b). The entry is: Judgment affirmed.