Can a party file multiple Rule 60(b) motions challenging subject matter jurisdiction? Sanders v. Sanders Explained

In Sanders v. Sanders, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a party can file successive Rule 60(b) motions challenging a court’s subject matter jurisdiction, even when similar arguments could theoretically have been raised earlier.

Background and Facts: Following their 2001 divorce, Kristine Sanders obtained judgments against Travis Sanders. The district court renewed these judgments in 2011, and Kristine sought a second renewal in 2019. Travis opposed this second renewal and filed a Rule 60(b) motion arguing the judgments were satisfied, but the court denied his motion and renewed the judgment for a second time. Nearly a year later, Travis filed a second Rule 60(b)(4) motion, arguing the twice-renewed judgment was void because the Renewal of Judgment Act did not authorize multiple renewals, creating a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Key Legal Issues: The central question was whether Travis waived his subject matter jurisdiction argument by not raising it in his first Rule 60(b) motion. The district court ruled the second motion was “procedurally improper” because the arguments “could and should have been raised in the prior motion,” relying on waiver principles from Utah v. 736 North Colorado Street.

Court’s Analysis and Holding: The Court of Appeals reversed, distinguishing 736 North Colorado Street on two key grounds. First, Travis’s motions targeted different renewed judgments—the first motion challenged the initial renewal before the second renewal occurred, while the second motion specifically challenged the twice-renewed judgment. Second, and more importantly, Rule 12(h) expressly states that parties do not waive arguments “that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter.” The court held that subject matter jurisdiction challenges under Rule 60(b)(4) cannot be waived, unlike personal jurisdiction defenses.

Practice Implications: This decision provides important guidance for appellate practitioners handling post-judgment motions. Subject matter jurisdiction challenges remain viable regardless of prior motion practice, offering a potential avenue for relief even when other arguments may be waived. The decision also highlights the distinction between personal jurisdiction (which can be waived) and subject matter jurisdiction (which cannot be waived) in the context of successive Rule 60(b) motions.