Rule 60(B) provides for relief from a final judgment on certain specified conditions, including mistake or excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, and fraud or misrepresentation. Subdivision (4) provides for relief if "the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged," and honestly, it's never been clear to me when or why that might warrant the vacature of a judgment. I understand why a judgment might be noted as "paid" or "satisfied," but why should that be grounds for relief from the judgment? The Second District has an answer, though not necessarily an entirely satisfying one, in Kossoudji v. Stamps.
Thursday, November 10, 2016
Monday, October 17, 2016
Fans of law-of-the-case and scope-of-the-appellate-mandate doctrines may want to check out the Second District's decision in LG Harris Family Limited Partnership v. 905 S. Main Street. The rest of you? Eh--move along.