Opinion ID: 1690763
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Time-Barred Claims

Text: ¶ 13. Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) must be based on some other reason than the first five clauses, and it must be some ground which will justify relief from the final judgment. Bryant, Inc. v. Walters, 493 So.2d 933, 939 (Miss.1986) (emphasis added); see also Page, 728 So.2d at 1079; Sartain, 588 So.2d at 212. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has similarly held that Rule 60(b)'s `any other reason' language refers to any other reason than those contained in the five enumerated grounds on which a court may grant a Rule 60(b) motion. Batts v. Tow-Motor Forklift Co., 66 F.3d 743, 747 (5th Cir.1995) (quoting Government Fin. Servs. One Ltd. Partnership v. Peyton Place, Inc., 62 F.3d 767, 773 (5th Cir. 1995)). ¶ 14. Claims of perjury constitute fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party under Rule 60(b)(1) and claims of new evidence constitute newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b). Subsection (1) and (3) claims must be made not more than six months after the judgment ... was entered. Moore has attempted to bypass the six month time limitation by cloaking his subsection (1) and (3) claims as a subsection (6) claim. ¶ 15. Because Moore is time barred from bringing fraud (perjury) and new evidence claims under Rule 60(b)(6), the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Moore's motion insofar as it pertains to these claims.