Opinion ID: 2277974
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Relief From Judgment Exercise of Discretion

Text: The Family Court granted the Husband's motion for relief from judgment, pursuant to Family Court Rule 60(b)(6). That subsection permits remedial action on the basis of any other reason justifying relief. This Court has previously considered the specific meaning of those identical words in Superior Court Civil Rule 60(b)(6). Jewell v. Division of Social Services, Del. Supr., 401 A.2d 88 (1979) (quoting Klapprott v. United States, 335 U.S. 601, 69 S.Ct. 384, 93 L.Ed. 266 (1949)). In Jewell, this Court concluded that those words vest the trial courts with power adequate to enable them to vacate judgments whenever such action is appropriate to accomplish justice. Id. A motion for relief under Family Court Civil Rule 60(b) is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Wife B. v. Husband B., Del.Supr., 395 A.2d 358, 359 (1978). Accordingly, the Family Court's ruling on such a motion will be set aside on appeal only for an abuse of discretion. Id. However, when examining a trial court's action on a motion filed pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6), this Court has also adopted an extraordinary circumstances test and superimposed it upon the abuse of discretion standard of appellate review. Jewell v. Division of Social Services, 401 A.2d at 90. Thus, the exercise of discretion by the Family Court in this matter, pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6), must be examined by an application of that extraordinary circumstance test. The record reflects that the Family Court entered an order appointing a guardian ad litem for the Husband on February 28, 1991. Paragraph one of that order provided: Respondent, James L. Hoffman, Jr., is adjudicated mentally incompetent. The record also reflects that the Wife never objected to or petitioned for relief from the adjudication of the Husband's incompetency in the first paragraph of the Family Court's order of February 28, 1991. In fact, not long after that order was entered, the Husband's guardian ad litem petitioned for alimony, [3] alleging the Husband's incompetency. The Wife filed a response to that petition for alimony on March 19, 1991, which admitted that the Husband was mentally incompetent. Nevertheless, on November 27, 1991, the Family Court ex mero motu corrected its February 28, 1991 order, by deleting paragraph one, which had adjudicated the Husband mentally incompetent, on the basis that it had never held a hearing to determine that issue. The corrective order, which the Family Court entered sua sponte on November 27, 1991, effectively precluded the Husband from receiving alimony indefinitely, even if he was otherwise eligible for such an award. 13 Del.C. § 1518(f). Consequently, in the interests of justice, the Family Court granted the Husband relief from what it perceived to be the injustice of its sua sponte corrective order, by vacating the parties divorce decree for the purpose of holding a hearing to adjudicate the Husband's competency, prior to the entry of a divorce decree. 13 Del.C. § 1518(f). The record supports the Family Court's finding that its sua sponte decision to delete the first paragraph from its February 28, 1991 order substantially affected the Husband's right to alimony. The record also supports the Family Court's finding that the Husband relied to his detriment upon its order of February 28, 1991, as well as the Wife's acquiescence therein and admission of his lack of mental capacity, by not requesting a hearing on the issue of his mental competency prior to the entry of the first divorce decree on April 23, 1991. Applying the extraordinary circumstances test to the facts in the record, this Court has concluded that the Family Court properly exercised its discretion in granting the Husband's application for relief from its sua sponte corrective order, by vacating its prior decree divorcing the parties. Jewell v. Division of Social Services, Del. Supr., 401 A.2d 88 (1979) (quoting Klapprott v. United States, 335 U.S. 601, 69 S.Ct. 384, 93 L.Ed. 266 (1949)); Fam.Ct. Civ.R. 60(b)(6).