Court Opinion

ID: 9858113
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 16:14:50.235631+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:02:38.540670
License: Public Domain

NEUMANN, Justice,
dissenting.
I do not believe this is a Rule 60(b)(vi) case requiring that section’s extraordinary remedy, nor do I believe the facts in this case present a live issue requiring clarification at this time. I agree with the trial court’s determination that plaintiffs motion is simply a belated substitute for a timely appeal. Our standard of appellate review for denial of a Rule 60(b) motion is abuse of discretion. Clooten v. Clooten, 520 N.W.2d 843 (N.D.1994). The same standard of review should apply to denial of a motion for clarification. I cannot say that the trial court acted arbitrarily, capriciously or unreasonably in deny*598ing plaintiffs motion in this case. I would affirm.