Opinion ID: 1466497
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: DLX's Underlying Motion

Text: Fox Trot also attacks DLX's underlying motion. First, it argues that the relief DLX requested, which it says may be charitably characterized as a motion under CR 60.02(f), would not constitute the kind of `unusual circumstances' justifying relief' under that rule. But that is for the Letcher Circuit Court to decide when it rules on the motion. Only the temporary stay of enforcement is before this Court. This Court cannot issue a writ of prohibition to address the merits of a motion that has not been decided by a lower court. In addition, Fox Trot argues that DLX's motion was untimely. Although a CR 60.02(f) motion must be made within a reasonable time, and this is a matter that addresses itself to the discretion of the trial court, Gross v. Commonwealth, 648 S.W.2d 853, 858 (Ky.1983), this Court has held that this decision should be subject to limited jurisdictional review. Asset Acceptance v. Moberly, 241 S.W.3d 329, 331 (Ky.2007). However, as the trial court has not actually granted CR 60.02(f) relief or made any determination as to timeliness, there is nothing yet to review. It would be inappropriate to address this issue first-hand through a writ action, especially as Fox Trot makes no compelling argument that the motion was not made within a reasonable time.