Can rule 60(b)(6) circumvent time limits for fraud-based motions? Thompson v. Wardley Corporation Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals in Thompson v. Wardley Corporation addressed a critical timing issue under rule 60(b) when parties seek relief from judgment based on alleged fraud or misconduct by opposing counsel and parties.

Background and Facts

After obtaining a judgment for unpaid commissions, Thompson discovered that defendants had sold corporate assets during litigation. She sued for fraudulent conveyance and unjust enrichment, but defendants successfully moved for summary judgment and sanctions. Nearly four and a half years later, Thompson learned through bankruptcy proceedings about an undisclosed 2005 assignment of lawsuit proceeds. She filed a rule 60(b) motion seeking relief from both the summary judgment and sanctions order, alleging defendants and their counsel made false representations and failed to produce discovery.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether Thompson’s motion fell under rule 60(b)(3) (fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct) with its three-month time limit, or under rule 60(b)(6) (any other reason) which requires only a reasonable time. Thompson argued her claims involved “exceptional circumstances” beyond mere fraud that justified relief under subparagraph (6).

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court of appeals affirmed the district court’s ruling that Thompson’s allegations constituted fraud, misrepresentation, and misconduct under rule 60(b)(3). The court emphasized that subparagraph (6) applies only to reasons “other than” those listed in subparagraphs (1) through (5). This structure prevents movants from circumventing time limits by repackaging fraud claims as exceptional circumstances. The court distinguished Menzies v. Galetka, noting that case involved a death penalty defendant whose own counsel had virtually abandoned him, unlike Thompson’s allegations against opposing parties.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that Utah courts strictly enforce rule 60(b) time limits and will not permit creative pleading to avoid them. Practitioners must carefully analyze whether their rule 60(b) claims fall under specific subparagraphs with strict deadlines. When fraud or misconduct by opposing parties forms the basis for relief, the three-month limit under subparagraph (3) applies regardless of how “exceptional” the circumstances may seem. The court also confirmed that when a rule 60(b) motion is untimely dismissed, courts lack jurisdiction to consider related sanctions motions or other substantive claims.