Opinion ID: 157391
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: motion for relief from or modification of judgment

Text: 48 The Estate contends that the district court abused its discretion in denying the Estate's Motion for Relief from or Modification of Judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). 10 The Estate argues that due to mistakes by counsel and/or the court, the court erroneously dismissed the Estate's suit without addressing three of its arguments relating to various amounts of interest. Although the Estate bases its appeal on Rule 60(b)(1) as well as Rule 60(b)(6), we need not rigidly compartmentalize our analysis upon review. Instead, we look to the record in its entirety to see if the trial judge clearly ignored excusable conduct or failed to recognize some other compelling reason for relief to be granted. Pelican Production Corp. v. Marino, 893 F.2d 1143, 1146 (10th Cir.1990) (citations omitted). Our review here is meaningfully narrower than review of the merits of a direct appeal. Bud Brooks Trucking, Inc. v. Bill Hodges Trucking Co., 909 F.2d 1437, 1440 (10th Cir.1990). Relief under Rule 60(b) is extraordinary and may be granted only in exceptional circumstances. Id. 49 In its motion to the district court, the Estate argued that it merited administrative expense deductions for (1) the $671,964.98 in interest paid on the audit deficiency and (2) $139,453 in interest paid to the State of Colorado on late-paid state inheritance taxes. 11 The Estate admitted that due to mistake and inadvertence of Counsel it had not raised or reserved these issues in its motion for summary judgment. Id. at 150, p 13. The Estate also sought a refund of a portion of the $671,964.98 in interest paid on the audit deficiency. It noted that the IRS had previously refunded a portion of the deficiency after allowing the Estate a credit for state inheritance taxes paid, and argued that the IRS should also return $116,787.50 in interest corresponding to this partial refund. 50 We conclude that the Estate never raised these arguments prior to entry of judgment, and therefore the court had no duty to address them. The Estate's motion for summary judgment made no reference to these issues. In addition, although its complaint did make two references to interest, it asked only for interest in addition to the refund of taxes paid. It asked for judgment against Defendant in the total amount of $2,167,080 plus interest previously paid to the Internal Revenue Service in the amount of $671,464.98, plus interest as provided by law, costs, attorneys' fees, and such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate. App. at 2 (emphasis added). This catchall demand for judgment ... plus interest did not apprise the court of the three specific claims the Estate later raised in its Rule 60 motion. Two of these three claims were based on the payment of state inheritance taxes; the court could not possibly have ruled on these claims because the state taxes were not even mentioned in the complaint. The other interest-related claim requested a deduction for the interest paid to the IRS on the audit deficiency. Although the complaint did ask for a refund of this interest, it did not claim a deduction in the event the refund was denied. 51 In these circumstances, the district court's denial of the Estate's motion was not an abuse of discretion. 12 There has been no showing of grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)(1). See Pelican, 893 F.2d at 1146. Furthermore, we see nothing sufficiently unusual or compelling here to warrant relief under Rule 60(b)(6). See id. at 1147. We realize this may result in a windfall to the government, but so will every failure to claim an available deduction or refund. 52 Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court as well as its denial of the Estate's Rule 60(b) motion. 53