Owens v. Mukendi

Summary

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that allegations that an attorney induced his client to default in litigation involving their financial transactions could constitute extraordinary circumstances warranting consideration under Mass. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6), rather than solely under Rule 60(b)(3). However, the court concluded that the motion to vacate was filed outside a reasonable time because the defendant had long been aware of the judgment, collection efforts, and facts supporting the asserted conflict of interest. The court reversed the order vacating the judgment and reinstated the original judgment.

Holdings

1. A motion may properly proceed under Mass. R. Civ. P. 60 (b) (6) when the alleged misconduct involves extraordinary circumstances arising from the special professional obligations of the opposing party's attorney and does not fit neatly or completely within rule 60 (b) (1) or (3).
2. Although rule 60 (b) (6) is not subject to the one-year limitation applicable to rule 60 (b) (1)-(3), a motion under rule 60 (b) (6) must still be filed within a reasonable time, and Mukendi's three and one-half year delay was unreasonable.
3. An independent action was unavailable because the alleged conduct did not establish a fraudulent judgment or fraud on the court, and the request was untimely in any event.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Mukendi's allegations that Owens, his attorney and business associate, induced him not to defend the action constituted extraordinary circumstances properly considered under Mass. R. Civ. P. 60 (b) (6), rather than only misconduct under rule 60 (b) (3).
2. Whether Mukendi filed his rule 60 (b) (6) motion within a reasonable time.
3. Whether Mukendi could obtain the same relief through an independent equitable action based on alleged fraud or fraud on the court.

Disposition

reversed