Opinion ID: 1405125
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Michael Is Barred by the Law of the Case Doctrine from Asserting a Claim of Mistake.

Text: Michael argues that he is entitled to relief because (1) the parties made a mutual mistake that he was obligated to support Tisha and (2) he made a unilateral mistake as to this duty. He fails to set forth the basis on which he relies to request relief; however, since the time for direct attack on the judgment has expired, his motion must be viewed as a request for relief pursuant to Rule 60(b). [6] See O'Link v. O'Link, 632 P.2d 225, 228 (Alaska 1981). In Dewey I we said: Relief under Civil Rule 60(b)(6) is inappropriate when a party takes a deliberate action that he later regrets as a mistake. Here, Michael deliberately agreed to support Tisha but now regrets the consequences. Furthermore, this court has held that clause (6) is reserved for extraordinary circumstances not governed by the preceding clauses, and that [t]ime-barred relief under the first five clauses is not allowed under clause (6). In this case, Michael is essentially alleging a mistake. Post-judgment relief for a mistake is governed by Civil Rule 60(b)(1), and is time-barred if not brought within one year. Michael cannot assert 60(b)(6) as a means of avoiding this time limitation. 886 P.2d 623, 628 (Alaska 1994) (citations and footnotes omitted). The law of the case doctrine requires a lower court to follow an appellate court's prior decision and prohibits reconsideration of issues which have been adjudicated in an appeal of the case. Bauman v. Day, 942 P.2d 1130, 1132 n. 1 (Alaska 1997) (citing Mogg v. National Bank of Alaska, 846 P.2d 806, 810 (Alaska 1993)). In light of our prior decision, Michael is clearly barred from rearguing the issue of mistake.