Morgan v. Morgan

Summary

The Alaska Supreme Court held that a former spouse’s motion under Alaska Civil Rule 60(b)(6) to modify a divorce decree and divide an undisclosed pension was untimely. Because she waited approximately three years after learning of the pension and offered no persuasive explanation for the delay, the court reversed and remanded the modification order.

Holdings

1. Elizabeth's three-year delay after learning of the pension was not reasonable, absent a persuasive explanation or evidence of circumstances beyond her control preventing an earlier motion; the superior court therefore abused its discretion by granting Rule 60(b)(6) relief.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Elizabeth's three-year delay after learning of Charles's pension rendered her Civil Rule 60(b)(6) motion untimely because it was not filed within a reasonable time.
2. Whether a motion styled under Civil Rule 60(b)(6), but substantively based on newly discovered evidence, should be evaluated in light of Rule 60(b)(2)'s one-year limitation period.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded