Opinion ID: 6499939
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: [¶6] Mr. Carroll’s request for relief was in substance a W.R.C.P. 60(b)(6) motion. 1 See Essex Holding, LLC v. Basic Properties, Inc., 2018 WY 111, ¶ 33, 427 P.3d 708, 717 (Wyo. 2018) (“[T]his Court looks to the substance of a motion in order to determine the appropriateness of the motion.”) (citations omitted). A trial court has discretion to deny relief under W.R.C.P. 60(b)(6), and we review the denial of relief for abuse of discretion. Est. of Dahlke ex rel. Jubie v. Dahlke, 2014 WY 29, ¶ 27, 319 P.3d 116, 124 (Wyo. 2014) (quoting Vanasse v. Ramsay, 847 P.2d 993, 996 (Wyo. 1993)). “An abuse of discretion occurs where the district court could not reasonably have concluded as it did.” Bartel v. West, 2015 WY 136, ¶ 12, 357 P.3d 1166, 1169 (Wyo. 2015) (quoting Drury v. State, 2008 WY 130, ¶ 8, 194 P.3d 1017, 1019 (Wyo. 2008)). The movant has the burden to “bring his cause within the claimed grounds of relief and to substantiate these claims with adequate proof.” SWC Prod., Inc. v. World Energy Partners, LLC, 2019 WY 95, ¶ 5, 448 P.3d 856, 858 (Wyo. 2019) (quoting Painovich v. Painovich, 2009 WY 116, ¶ 5, 216 P.3d 501, 503 (Wyo. 2009)). “An order denying relief will be reversed only if the trial court was clearly wrong.” Id. (citing Painovich, 2009 WY 116, ¶ 5, 216 P.3d at 503). 1 (b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: