Opinion ID: 1177256
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The timeliness of the Rills' 60(b)(1) motion.

Text: Motions under Rule 60(b)(1) must be filed within a reasonable time and not more than a year after the judgment. [4] Alaska R.Civ.P. 60(b). Judgment was entered by by the superior court on November 12, 1981, and the Rills filed their motion under Rule 60(b)(1) on May 5, 1982. In my view, the superior court erred in finding [t]hat the motion to set aside the judgment of November 12, 1981 was not brought within the reasonable time required by the rule. Attorney Ravin returned to Alaska on November 14, 1981, two days after the entry of judgment, and continued to neglect the Rills' case. He never contacted the court, his clients or counsel for the state. I do not consider this delay significant in itself, since Ravin was simply continuing the unprofessional behavior which I believe in this case amounts to excusable neglect. By mid-November 1981 the Rills had taken action on their own, by hiring another lawyer to ascertain what had happened in their inverse condemnation action. By early December 1981, the Rills' new attorney, Mark Choate, had apprised himself and the Rills of the status of the Rills' lawsuit. In late January 1982, the Rills substituted Choate as counsel, formally replacing Ravin. By March 3, 1982, Choate had obtained from Ravin relevant files and information pertaining to the Rills' case [5] as well as an affidavit from Ravin. [6] The filing of the motion two months later was clearly within the time period contemplated by Rule 60(b). [7]