Opinion ID: 3015863
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Refusal to Hear Evidence

Text: At the outset, we note that refusing to hear evidence, without more, does not constitute a “clearly erroneous finding of fact, an errant conclusion of law or an improper application of law to fact” as is required for a finding of abuse of discretion in a 60(b) case. Thus, even assuming that Chusid’s characterization of the New Jersey Court’s action is correct, it still would not rise to the level of an abuse of discretion. Chusid’s characterization, however, seems inaccurate. According to the transcript, the New Jersey District Judge did display familiarity with the issue at hand. The Judge quoted from a well-respected treatise on the topic, cited a Seventh Circuit case, and 9 This is essentially the same argument Chusid makes with regards to the due process claim discussed later in the opinion. 9 accurately pointed out that the instant case did not qualify under the exception which permits a registering court,10 as opposed to a rendering court, to hear the 60(b) motion.11 The Judge also asked Chusid’s attorney for any cases supporting his position. None were provided. In these circumstances, we find no abuse of discretion.